Town Commons

Fred Doesn't CAIR

2007-06-22T06:32:00.000-04:00

To Fred's great credit, he has no blinders on about CAIR and is quite willing to speak up. Of more importance, he has no blinders on about those funding CAIR. Fred not only speaks out against CAIR, but also its financial backers - Saudi Arabia and the UAE. If ever the problem of radical Islam will be addressed in the West, then the first step is to acknowledge the role of our supposed Middle East allies in fanning the flames of radicalism in the West.

This from Fred:

. . . For years, CAIR has claimed to represent millions of American Muslims. In fact, they claim to represent more Muslims in America then [there are Muslims] in America. This has alarmed Americans in general as the group often seems to be more aligned with our enemies than us -- which isn't surprising as it spun off from a group funded by Hamas. As you know, Hamas has been waging a terrorist war against Israel and calls for its total destruction. It also promises to see America destroyed. Nowadays, Hamas is busy murdering its Palestinian political rivals.

Even with this history, and CAIR's conspicuous failure to condemn Hamas by name, it has been treated as if represents Muslim Americans by our own government. The good news is that the financial support CAIR claims to have among American Muslims is a myth. We know this because The Washington Times got hold of the group's IRS tax records.

CAIR's dues-paying membership has shrunk 90 percent since 9/11 . . . Clearly, America's Muslims are not supporting this group -- and I'm happy to hear about it.

Of course, every silver lining seems to have a cloud; and this cloud is that CAIR's spending is running about $3 million a year. They’ve opened 25 new chapters in major cities across the country even as their dues shrank to a pittance. The question is; who’s funding CAIR?

CAIR's not saying. The New York Times earlier this year reported that the backing is from "wealthy Persian Gulf governments" including the UAE and Saudi Arabia. Obviously, we have a bigger problem here than the one with CAIR.

Read the entire story here. If you read Robert Baer's book "Sleeping With The Devil," he thoroughly documents on Saudi money has had a horrendously corrupting influence on our government, Republican and Democrat alike. Part of this has played out in governmental silence about the Saudi's export of radical Wahhabi / Salafi Islam throughout the Western World. Part of this has played out in the government's refusal to acknowledge the Saudi's destructive influence. And part of it has played out in calling our enemy "Islamofacism" rather then Wahhabi / Salafi Islam and Khomeinist Shia'ism.

This has all been in an effort to make sure that the Saudi's are angred or upset and decide to turn off the oil and money spigot. But this facade has to end. And the bottom line is that the Saudi's need the U.S. economically and as a bullwark against Khomeinist Shia'ism. It is time for our leaders to take on radical Islam at its source. And that source begins with Saudi Arabia. Thus, I salute Fred for this first step.

BBC The Fifth Column?

2007-06-22T05:03:00.000-04:00

As this poster from WWII communicates, one should not blithley give away information about military units or their precise movements. This is sheer common sense. Information is power in war. If you know where the enemy is, his routes of travel, and his strength at any particular location, then you can successfully attack and kill them. Such information in wartime is always classified and always closely guarded. It is a matter of life and death. This is all the more true when you are moving on the offensive - as the U.S. military is now doing. The U.S. military is in the opening stage of a massive Corps size offensive going on throughout Iraq, including in Diyala Province.

The BBC ran a story on the U.S. and Iraqi offensive in Diyala Province the other day. At the conclusion of the article, they appended the following request for information:

"Are you in Iraq? Have you seen any troop movements? If you have any information you would like to share with the BBC, you can do so using the form below."

See here. There is an excellent discussion of this at the website Biased BBC. And the Telegraph provides some additional information on this incident:

A spokesman was unable to offer a detailed explanation of why anyone at the BBC should be seeking such information or whether any details on troop movements had been received.

He refused to identify who put the message up but said that "the journalist" responsible had been reminded that "this is not a form of words we would use".

However, in a statement, the BBC added: "BBC Online regularly asks visitors to its websites to supply information they may have relating to a specific story through a response form posted at the end of a news item.

"This particular page should not have been published. The BBC never broadcasts or publishes information which may put British troops at increased risk."

Read the entire article here. here. There is no legitimate reason whatsoever for the BBC to be seeking this information just as American soldiers are launching a major offensive. Information on troop movements during an offensive has no news value. Its only value is to the enemy. Even setting aside for the moment the virulently anti-American bent of the BBC, as well as their pro-Arab bent, it is quite reasonable that our government should be demanding a thorough investigation of who put up this request for information, who received information per the request, and whether it was retransmitted to anyone.

The BBC has completely stepped over the line on this one.

Brits Getting a Bit Less Multicultural?

2007-06-22T03:30:00.000-04:00

It seems the rank and file of our cousins across the pond are losing patience with Islamic women who think it appropriate to wear the Niqab, covering themselves head to toe. Actually, rather then take issue with the women, greater issue should be taken with the poisonous Wahhabi clerics who strongly call for this as just one more means of insuring that Muslims do not integrate into the West. In either event, the UK is not Saudi Arabia. Dressing in such garb is a clear sign of a refusal to integrate into British secular society, and as such, it is wholly inappropriate inside the UK. The UK should outlaw such garb in all government buildings, as do France and Turkey.

Increasingly, Muslim women in Britain take their children to school and run errands covered head to toe in flowing black gowns that allow only a slit for their eyes. On a Sunday afternoon in Hyde Park, groups of black-clad Muslim women relaxed on the green baize lawn among the in-line skaters and badminton players.

Their appearance, like little else, has unnerved other Britons, testing the limits of tolerance here and fueling the debate over the role of Muslims in British life.

Many veiled women say they are targets of abuse. Meanwhile, there are growing efforts to place legal curbs on the full-face Muslim veil, known as the niqab.

There have been numerous examples in the past year. A lawyer dressed in a niqab was told by an immigration judge that she could not represent a client because, he said, he could not hear her. A teacher wearing a niqab was dismissed from her school. A student who was barred from wearing a niqab took her case to the courts, and lost. In reaction, the British educational authorities are proposing a ban on the niqab in schools altogether.

A leading Labor Party politician, Jack Straw, scolded women last year for coming to see him in his district office in the niqab. Prime Minister Tony Blair has called the niqab a “mark of separation.”

David Sexton, a columnist for The Evening Standard, wrote recently that the niqab was an affront and that Britain had been “too deferential.”

“It says that all men are such brutes that if exposed to any more normally clothed women, they cannot be trusted to behave — and that all women who dress any more scantily like that are indecent,” Mr. Sexton wrote. “It’s abusive, a walking rejection of all our freedoms.”

. . . Some who wear the niqab, particularly younger women who have taken it up recently, concede that it is a frontal expression of Islamic identity, which they have embraced since Sept. 11, 2001, as a form of rebellion against the policies of the Blair government in Iraq, and at home.

. . . Other Muslims find the practice objectionable, a step backward for a group that is under pressure after the terrorist attack on London’s transit system in July 2005.

“After the July 7 attacks, this is not the time to be antagonizing Britain by presenting Muslims as something sinister,” said Imran Ahmad, the author of “Unimagined,” an autobiography about growing up Muslim in Britain, and the leader of British Muslims for Secular Democracy. “The veil is so steeped in subjugation, I find it so offensive someone would want to create such barriers. It’s retrograde.”

Since South Asians started coming to Britain in large numbers in the 1960s, a small group of usually older, undereducated women have worn the niqab. It was most often seen as a sign of subjugation.

Many more Muslim women wear the head scarf, called the hijab, covering all or some of their hair. Unlike in France, Turkey and Tunisia, where students in state schools and civil servants are banned from covering their hair, in Britain, Muslim women can wear the head scarf, and indeed the niqab, almost anywhere, for now.

But that tolerance is slowly eroding. Even some who wear the niqab, like Faatema Mayata, a 24-year-old psychology and religious studies teacher, agreed there were limits.

“How can you teach when you are covering your face?” she said, sitting with a cup of tea in her living room in Blackburn, a northern English town, her niqab tucked away because she was within the confines of her home.

She has worn the niqab since she was 12, when she was sent by her parents to an all-girl boarding school. The niqab was not, as many Britons seemed to think, a sign of extremism, she said.

She condemned Britain’s involvement in Iraq, and she described the departure of Mr. Blair at the end of this month as “good riddance of bad rubbish.” But, she added, “there are many Muslims like this sitting at home having tea, and not taking any interest in jihad.”

The niqab, to her, is about identity. “If I dressed in a Western way I could be a Hindu, I could be anything,” she said. “This way I feel comfortable in my identity as a Muslim woman.”

No one else in her family wears the niqab. Her husband, Ibrahim Boodi, a social worker, was indifferent, she said. “If I took it off today, he wouldn’t care.”

. . . At the East London Mosque, one of the largest mosques in the capital, the chief imam, Abdul Qayyum, studied in Saudi Arabia and is trained in the Wahhabi school of Islam. The community relations officer at the mosque, Ehsan Abdullah Hannan, said the imam’s daughter wore the niqab.

At Friday Prayer recently, the women were crowded into a small windowless room upstairs, away from the main hall for the men.

A handful of young women wore the niqab, and they spoke effusively about their reasons. “Wearing the niqab means you will get a good grade and go to paradise,” said Hodo Muse, 19, a Somali woman. “Every day people are giving me dirty looks for wearing it, but when you wear something for God you get a boost.” . . .

Read the entire story here.

Krauthammer On Hamas & Fatah, Challenges & Bench Marks

2007-06-22T02:58:00.000-04:00

Charles Krauthammer sees the challenges and opportunities in the clarification of Hamas Fatah scenario, as well as noting how Israel, with the hands on the controls of Gaza's water, gas and electricity has Hamas by its radical Islamic short hairs:

Gaza is now run not by a conventional political party but by a movement that is revolutionary, Islamist and terrorist. Worse, Hamas is a client of Iran. Gaza now constitutes the farthest reach of the archipelago of Iranian proxies: Hamas in Palestine, Hezbollah in Lebanon, the Mahdi Army (among others) in Iraq and the Alawite regime of Syria.

This Islamist mini-replica of the Comintern is at war not just with Israel but with the moderate Arab states, who finally woke up to this threat last summer when they denounced Hezbollah for provoking the Lebanon war with Israel. The fall of Gaza is particularly terrifying to Egypt because Hamas is so closely affiliated with the Muslim Brotherhood, the chief Islamist threat to the secular-nationalist regime that has ruled Egypt since the revolution of 1952. Which is why Egypt has just invited Israeli, Jordanian and moderate Palestinian leaders to a summit next week -- pointedly excluding and isolating Hamas.

The splitting of Palestine into two entities is nonetheless clarifying.

. . . The policy implications are obvious. There is nothing to do with the self-proclaimed radical Islamist entity that is Gaza but to isolate it. No recognition, no aid (except humanitarian necessities through the United Nations), no diplomatic commerce.

Israel now has the opportunity to establish deterrence against unremitting rocket attacks from Gaza into Israeli villages. Israel failed to do that after it evacuated Gaza in 2005, permitting the development of an unprecedented parasitism by willingly supplying food, water, electricity and gasoline to a territory that was actively waging hostilities against it.

With Hamas now clearly in charge, Israel should declare that it will tolerate no more rocket fire -- that the next Qassam will be answered with a cutoff of gasoline shipments. This should bring road traffic in Gaza to a halt within days and make it increasingly difficult to ferry around missiles and launchers.

If that fails to concentrate the mind, the next step should be to cut off electricity. When the world wails, Israel should ask, what other country on Earth is expected to supply the very means for a declared enemy to attack it?

Regarding the West Bank, policy should be equally clear. Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas represents moderation and should be helped as he tries to demonstrate both authority and success in running his part of Palestine.

But let's remember who Abbas is. He appears well intentioned, but he is afflicted with near-disastrous weaknesses. He controls little. His troops in Gaza simply collapsed against the greatly outnumbered forces of Hamas. His authority in the West Bank is far from universal. He does not even control the various factions within Fatah.

But the greater liability is his character. He is weak and indecisive. . .

Moreover, his Fatah party is ideologically spent and widely discredited. Historian Michael Oren points out that the Palestinian Authority has received more per capita aid than did Europe under the Marshall Plan. This astonishing largess has disappeared into lavish villas for party bosses and guns for the multiple militias Arafat established.

The West is rushing to bolster Abbas. Israel will release hundreds of millions in tax revenue. The United States and the European Union will be pouring in aid. All praise Abbas as a cross between Anwar Sadat and Simón Bolívar. Fine. We have no choice but to support him. But before we give him the moon, we should insist upon reasonable benchmarks of both moderation and good governance -- exactly what we failed to do during the Oslo process. Abbas needs to demonstrate his ability to run a clean administration and to engage Israel in day-to-day negotiations to alleviate the conditions of life on the ground.

Abbas is not Hamas. But despite the geographical advantages, he does not represent the second coming, either. We can prop him up only so much. In the end, the only one who can make a success of the West Bank is Abbas himself. This is his chance. His last chance.

Read the entire story here. Finally, some benchmarks we can get behind. This sounds perfectly appropriate and far more sound then just opening the spigots. We may have to force Fatah to succeed as a nation - rather then subsidize opulence for its war lords. Perhaps, given their recent fate in Gaza, we may find Abbas and his gang a bit more willing this time.

Official Inquiries Into The Iran UK Hostage Crisis Leave Much To Be Desired

2007-06-21T19:50:00.000-04:00

The Iran UK hostage crisis of several weeks ago marked a low point for Britain - and a lower one for the EU. All was compounded when, in the wake of crisis, Britain's Naval Office authorized the former hostages to sell their stories to the media, an act normally reserved for people who have committed acts of bravery sufficient to win the UK's highest award, the Victoria Cross. That authorization was soon rescinded in a firestorm of protest. As a result of all that transpired, the government commissioned two inquiries, one on the hostage taking, the other on selling stories to the media.

As a threshold matter, Britain was short one inquiry. Britain should have commissioned a third inquiry into the actions of the EU to assess at a minimum the state of Britain's security relationship to the EU in light of every member state's complete refusal to help Britain in the conflict with Iran. To so soon forget that act of craven, short-sighted greed by the EU, and then to sweep it under the rug, does a tremendous disservice to Britain and allows a wholly dysfunctional EU to continue business as usual. Neither is acceptable.

Leaving that glaring omission aside for the moment, the results of the other two inquiries are in.

The first of these two inquiries looked into responsibility for the situation which ultimately led to the kidnapping. This from the EU Referendum:

Lt General Rob Fulton - former Commandant of the Royal Marines – came very highly recommended, and those who have seen his full report on the Iran hostages incident retain their opinion of him.

His report concludes that the events of 23 March were the result not of a single failure or any particular individual's human error, but rather of an unfortunate accumulation of factors - many relatively small when viewed in isolation - but which together placed our personnel in a position that could be exploited through a deliberate act by an unpredictable foreign state.

The Chief of the Defence Staff Air Chief Marshal Sir Jock Stirrup, adds to that, saying of the report:
…it does identify a number of weaknesses, including the coherence of strategic and operational direction within the coalition environment, the handling of intelligence, the development of doctrine and the conduct of training.

The authors of the EU Referendum blogspot find this acceptable. I have nothing but the highest regard for the authors of EU Referendum. The work that they do is absolutely first rate. But in this instance, I think that they are much in error. I do not believe that the public should accept the Fulton Report as presented for several reasons.

One, the entire report has been held classified and not subject to release. I find it hard to believe that, in light of an event of this magnitude, the bulk of the inquiry and the results thereof could not be made public. While security considerations must be given priority, this was a national travesty, and to wholly black out the entire report does not satisfy the government's duty to its people or its soldiers.

Two, it is hard for me to believe, in light of all the facts now in the public domain, that at a minimum the Commander of the HMS Cornwall or officers under his command did not fail in their duty. There is no circumstance, nor any snowballing set of of circumstances, that make up for a commander allowing his troops to operate outside of support. This is not good news for the British military.

To put this in perspective, twice now there has been a similar occurrence with the US military in Iraq. In the first instance, three soldiers of the 101st Abn were left without support to man a checkpoint. They were kidnapped and killed. The company commander and platoon leader were relieved of dury. There has not been any media reports regarding the more recent incident, where the chain of command placed a group of eight soldiers from the 10th Mtn Division in an overwatch position 45 minutes away from support. That incident, just a few weeks ago, resulted in the deaths of six with two still believed held by al Qaeda. I would bet my life's saving that the officers in the chain of command with responsiblity for that decision have been relieved. Fair or not, competent of not, putting soldiers in that position is unforgivable.

It is the duty of officers in wartime to forsee contingencies and shape circumstances, not to blithely use circumstances as an excuse for the failure of basic responsibilities. And an officer's most basic responsibility is to provide reasonable security for his or her troops. Putting troops out to conduct operations without sufficient security and/or out of range of support is a complete failure of that responsibility. That is not negotiable. That is not subject to amelioraton by an "accumulation of errors." Officers who have committed that sin should be relieved of command not merely because there is a queston of their competence, but more importantly to tell the soldiers and other officers that the military will not tolerate the loss of soldiers arising out of an officer's lack of foresight or aggressive leadership. Those latter reasons should not in any circumstance be underestimated. Britain's failure to hold any officers responsible for this travesty has to have some effect on the trust of troops for their commanders. In such circumstance allowing officers merely to have their discipline meted out in subtle ways below the radar, as suggested in the EU Referendum, is insufficient.

Three, the former First Sea Lord, Admiral Sir Alan West, said:

British rules of engagement were "very much de-escalatory, because we don't want wars starting ... Rather than roaring into action and sinking everything in sight we try to step back and that, of course, is why our chaps were, in effect, able to be captured and taken away."

And the current First Sea Lord, Admiral Sir Jonathon Band, suspended boarding operations after the kidnapping and then defended all of the actions of the crew both in surrendering without a fight and their less then military conduct while in captivity. These are the people who have risen to the top of Britain's military. And it wasn't all that long ago that General Sir Richard Dannatt, Britain's Chief of Staff, took it upon himself to give interviews wherein he urged that the British disengage from Iraq. I am sure all three of these officers have at least a fine a reputation as does LTG Fulton. But after all of the above mentioned revelations, you will excuse me if I remain cynical and somewhat less then trusting about the judgment of the current crop of senior British military leaders - at least in the absence of a redacted report. The public deserves such a report. Much more importantly, the soldiers in Britain's military deserve it.

The second inquiry, the Hall Report, was into how and when members of the military should be allowed to sell their stories to the media. The Hall Report's recommendation is wholly appropriate:

60. We . . . recommend that, for the future, serving personnel (both military and civilian) should not accept payments for talking to the media or the public about their work. There should be no exceptions to this rule. The acceptance of payments from the media offended the public and their view of the special place of the Armed Forces in British life. And it also ran contrary to what the Armed Forces believe they stand for: the team versus the individual, and selfless service on behalf of the nation. That the decision to accept payment caused such anger and concern was entirely understandable.

Interestingly, while the Hall Report annunciates an iron clad rule in this paragraph, they recognize very narrow categories of excpetions in succeeding paragraphs. Regardless, the exceptions seem well thought out. But, ominously, the Hall Report goes beyond the mandate to review when it is appropriate for a serving member of the military to talk with the media for payment and into regulation of all unpaid communications with the public or the media through blogs and the like:

67. Finally, as our report made clear at the beginning, the media environment has changed enormously since the Falklands War. It is changing again at a speed that is vertiginous. We have heard, in the course of our review, of cases where the release of information inadvertently led to risks to operations and individuals, and the proliferation of technology, and extension of media access to operations, set out above clearly means that the potential for further such cases is, if anything, increasing. For that reason, we think that urgent consideration needs to be given to policies dealing with the use of mobile phones, the video capacity of mobile phones, and the use of blogs, emails and social networking sites. We have been told that work in this area is already underway. Given the rise of the “citizen journalist”, the implications need to be thought through as a priority.

Lastly, while the government response in the wake of the Iran UK hostage taking has been been questionable, such is not the case with the response of the rank and file military. The Army's response to the performance of their brethern in the Navy and Marines has not only been apropriate, but melodious:

The government report into the captured British sailors has revealed that no-one is to blame and no disciplinary action will be taken!

That's not the verdict of the Army. Last month the Army played the Navy at football. They came prepared with their own special song.

To the tune of 'What shall we do with a drunken sailor'

What shall we do with the captured sailors?
What shall we do with the captured sailors?
What shall we do with the captured sailors?
Ear-lye in the morning

Ooh'ray and Faye is gopping (ed- 'gopping' apparently means 'ugly')
Ooh'ray and Faye is gopping
Ooh'ray and Faye is gopping
Ear-lye in the morning

Take away his ipod and make him blubber
Take away his ipod and make him blubber
Take away his ipod and make him blubber
Ear-lye in the morning

Put him in a suit and make him smile
Put him in a suit and make him smile
Put him in a suit and make him smile
Ear-lye in the morning

Give 'em forty grand and hear them snivel
Give 'em forty grand and hear them snivel
Give 'em forty grand and hear them snivel
Ear-lye in the morning

Give him an alcopop and watch him dribble
Give him an alcopop and watch him dribble
Give him an alcopop and watch him dribble
Ear-lye in the morning

Send the ugly bint right back to tehran
Send the ugly bint right back to tehran
Send the ugly bint right back to tehran
Ear-lye in the morning

Put them on the telly smoking ciggies
Put them on the telly smoking ciggies
Put them on the telly smoking ciggies
Ear-lye in the morning

Compliments of Pommygranate with a Hat Tip to Bill

Surge News: Fifth Day of the Massive Offensive Targeting Sadr & Al Qaeda

2007-06-21T15:59:00.000-04:00

There is little that should cheer Americans more then the fact that we are finally on the offensive in Iraq. Operation Phantom Thunder is a Corps level offensive that is smaller only then the initial invasion of Iraq. We are taking the fight to the enemy, surrounding them, and eliminating them. In light of our internal politics, this offensive is indeed the start of the end game. It will reshape Iraq.

Yet I wonder if one person in a thousand is aware of the scope of this offensive and all of its ramifications. One certainly will not understand or know if relying solely on the MSM. Compare the Washington Post report of today with this article by Bill Roggio:

Phantom Thunder is a corps level operation, with multiple U.S. and Iraqi divisions engaged on multiple fronts. Iraqi Security Forces and Multinational Forces Iraq are engaged in intense fights in four main theaters: Baghdad proper, and the belts regions consisting of Diyala and southern Salahadin province to the north, northern Bail province to the south, and eastern Anbar province to the west of Baghdad. The fighting has been the most intense in the city of Baqubah, the provincial capital of Diyala.

. . . Operation Arrowhead Ripper

. . . Baqubah is the provincial capital of Diyala as well as al Qaeda's proclaimed capital of its rump Islamic State of Iraq. Hundreds, and upwards of 1,000 al Qaeda fighters are believed to be holed up in the city in prepared fighting positions. The city has been mined with IEDs and booby trapped homes, and seeded with snipers.

Michael Gordon reported troops moving into western Baqubah, where al Qaeda is holed up, found well prepared medical aid stations and field hospitals. . . Baqubah and greater Diyala province is al Qaeda country.

"At least 41 insurgents have been killed, five weapons caches have been discovered, 25 improvised explosive devices have been destroyed and five booby-trapped houses have been discovered and destroyed," Multinational Forces Iraq reported last evening.

The 3rd Stryker Brigade Combat Team of the 2nd Infantry Division (3/2) appears to be shouldering the brunt of the combat. The soldiers from the 3/2 "killed 24-36 enemy fighters and detained nine," according to Mike Gilbert of the News Tribune. "They found and destroyed 16 other roadside bombs, four houses that had been rigged to explode, and two car bombs. They found two safe houses, destroyed what he described as a mobile weapons cache, and captured two other weapons caches, including 'a significant IED cache.'"

. . . U.S. and Iraqi troops are receiving valuable intelligence from the resident of Baqubah. "A positive indicator on the 19th and the 20th is that most local people apparently are happy that al Qaeda is being trapped and killed," Michael Yon noted. "Civilians are pointing out IEDs and enemy fighters, so that’s not working so well for al Qaeda."

While the reporting from the regions outside Baqubah is sparse, there are indications engagements are also ongoing in the Diyala River valley.

Operations Marne Torch and Commando Eagle

Multinational Division Central, the newly created command to deal with the southern Baghdad Belts, has two concurrent major operations ongoing in its area of operations. Marne Torch is focusing on the city and surrounding regions of Arab Jabour, which is southeast of Baghdad. Commando Eagle is focusing on the Mahmudiyah region southwest of Baghdad.

"To date, Marne Torch and Iraqi army units have detained more than five dozen suspected extremists and destroyed more than 17 boats on the Tigris River that are responsible for transporting accelerants into Baghdad," Multinational Forces Iraq reported in a press release. "U.S. forces killed five insurgents, discovered and destroyed 12 improvised explosive devices, and detained 13 wanted individuals."

Operation Commando Eagle began on June 21, and was described as a " mix of helicopter-borne air assaults and Humvee-mounted movements, included Soldiers from several battalions of the 2nd Brigade Combat Team, 10th Mountain Division (Light Infantry) out of Fort Drum, N.Y., and the 4th Brigade, 6th Iraqi Army Division."

The operation has yielded 29 suspected insurgents and numerous weapons caches, including one containing "75 CDs of propaganda and terror techniques instructing methods to commit kidnappings and to shoot down coalition helicopters."

The Mahmudiyah region contains the notorious "Triangle of Death," an area where al Qaeda and Sunni insurgents have established bases of operations to attack Baghdad and launch attacks on the Shia areas to the south. Three U.S. soldiers were captured in the region in mid May, and two of the soldiers are still missing.

Operation ??? in eastern Anbar

Multinational Forces West has yet to release the name of the ongoing operations in eastern Anbar province. But the scope of the operation in eastern Anbar is now clearer. In an Associated Press interview with Brigadier General John Allen, the deputy commander of Multinational Forces West, the hot spots in the province were identified.

Brig. Gen. Allen noted there are three main focal points: Fallujah, Karma and the Thar Thar region. The Fallujah piece includes moving into each of the 11 neighborhoods of the city and "establishing very quickly neighborhood watch organizations and a police precinct headquarters." . . .

The operation to secure the Fallujah neighborhoods is called Alljah. "The operation is similar to what another unit did in the city of Ramadi,” said Maj. George S. Benson, executive officer of 2nd Battalion, 6th Marines “We’re capitalizing on the success of Ramadi and using many of the same techniques.”

Fallujah is expected to be fully secured by August. U.S. forces expect to clear Karma, the poisonous al Qaeda haven northeast of Fallujah, and the Thar Thar region by July. "We're going to clear Karma here very shortly," Brig Gen Allen told the Associated Press, as he described the town as a "way station" to and from Baghdad. "We're going to start churning up the ground north on the grounds of Thar Thar ... a spot where we haven't had forces before."

Captain Eric Coulson, a the commanding officer of a Army Engineer company in the Fallujah Ramadi corridor and author of Badgers Forward described the situation in eastern Anbar in an interview today. "Al Karma continues to be the most challenging area in Multinational Forces West's area of operations, followed by Zaidon. Karma is the one place we can be guaranteed to find IEDs every night."

Captain Coulson also noted the improved security situation in Fallujah and the Habbaniyah and Amiriyah regions. "Fallujah gets better by the day," he noted. "Most of the area west of the river seems to be stable. There are lots of tribes and Iraqi Police providing local security in the Habbaniyah and Amiriayh/Ferris areas. The truth is it is very quite."

Battling the Mahdi Army; raiding al Qaeda

As the major offensive is ongoing in the belts, the pressure is being kept up on Muqtada al Sadr's Mahdi Army as well as al Qaeda's network throughout Iraq.

Iraqi Special Forces raided Sadr City and captured a “key insurgent leader” on June 20, along with two associates. “This individual is allegedly responsible for coordinating and conducting kidnappings, death squad killings and improvised explosive device attacks against innocent civilians and Iraqi and Coalition Forces,” noted Multinational Forces Iraq. “The primary suspect is allegedly responsible for supplying vehicles, identification materials, and uniforms to support insurgent activities such as the kidnappings and extra-judicial killing of Iraqi citizens. He is also alleged to have received new technologies to upgrade improvised explosive devices that would be used to target Iraqi and Coalition Forces.”

This comes as General David Petraeus announced that an “Iran-backed” secret cell of Mahdi Army was behind the kidnapping of five British civilians in Baghdad last May. “We think that it is the same network that killed our soldiers in Karbala in an operation back in January,” General Petraeus told The Times. “We killed the head of that network less than a week before the operation that detained those British civilians. It was already planned and carried out by his followers. It is a secret cell of Jaish al-Mahdi [al-Mahdi Army] not all of which are under control of Moqtada al-Sadr.” General Petraeus is referring to the Iranian backed Qazali Network, which the U.S. has been actively working to dismantle.

The operations against al Qaeda’s nationwide network also continue. Raids on Wednesday and Thursday in Mosul, Karma, Fallujah and “north of Baghdad” netted 11 al Qaeda. Coalition forces have positively identified an al Qaeda leader from the Karma region who was killed on June 17. “Hussayn Awath Hussayn Hawawi, also known as Abu Thabbit, was a Libyan foreign fighter with connections to the North African foreign fighter network and ties to al-Qaeda in Iraq… Intelligence reports indicate he moved at least 30 North African fighters into Iraq” after escaping during a prison break in Mosul in March. “Hawawi is also believed to be involved in suicide bombing operations, and his foreign fighters allegedly conducted a number of attacks on Coalition Forces in Anbar province in late May.”

The concurrent operations in the Baghdad Belts, combined with the effort to secure Baghdad and the Special Forces raids on al Qaeda’s network will place a great strain on the terror group if the momentum is carried through the summer. Iraqi and Coalition forces are striking hard in the heart of al Qaeda and Sunni insurgent havens in Diyala, Babil and Anbar while squeezing the terror groups in the capital and conducting intelligence driven raids to keep the enemy off balance.

Al Qaeda can chose to stand and fight, and may do so in some places. But will eventually attempt to flee the hot zones in central Iraq for safer grounds. This will push them further from Iraq’s center of gravity, while placing them at risk while attempting to reestablish their networks. Northwestern Iraq – Niwena, Salahadin and Kirkuk will be a likely destination, however some of the most experienced Iraqi Army units are operating in the region. Some of them are taking up blocking positions to prevent the infiltration of terrorists attempting to escape Operation Phantom Fury.

And do see Michael Yon's report from Baqubah:

Our guys are tough. The enemy in Baqubah is as good as any in Iraq, and better than most. That’s saying a lot. But our guys have been systematically trapping them, and have foiled some big traps set for our guys. I don’t want to say much more about that, but our guys are seriously outsmarting them. Big fights are ahead and we will take serious losses probably, but al Qaeda, unless they find a way to escape, are about to be slaughtered. Nobody is dropping leaflets asking them to surrender. Our guys want to kill them, and that’s the plan.

A positive indicator on the 19th and the 20th is that most local people apparently are happy that al Qaeda is being trapped and killed. Civilians are pointing out IEDs and enemy fighters, so that’s not working so well for al Qaeda. Clearly, I cannot do a census, but that says something about the locals.

Agenda Journalism: Dwelling on American Deaths & Enemy Successes

2007-06-21T13:31:00.000-04:00

If you ran a newspaper and wanted to report objectively on the Iraq war, what formula would you follow? No doubt your headline would be about our main actions in the war zone that day. Your reporting would begin with our major activities, both the successes and failures of our units. As a part of reporting on these activities, you would make note of friendly casualties. We must never lose site of the sacrifice we are asking our soldiers to make as part of the war effort. We must acknowledge them and honor them.

But what if you wanted to push a particular agenda? What if you wanted to maintain only a facade of objectivity while doing your utomost to undercut support for the war in Iraq among Americans? How would you do it?

The answer of course is to place the greatest emphasis on the most negative news concerning the war. That would mean emphasizing news of enemy successes and friendly casualties over all else. It would mean reporting a butcher's bill as the headline and dwelling on that bill in the lead paragraphs every day. Enter the Washington Post Foreign Desk.

The Washington Post's Foreign Desk is not reporting the news objectively. They are shaping it in an effort to manipulate public opinion about the Iraq war. The formula that they follow is, by now, well established. Their daily headline on the news from Iraq announces the number of American or friendly casualties. Usually the majority of the story then dwells on these deaths. Only then, at the end of the article, is there any news about the activities of our military in Iraq. And even then, the news of our activities in Iraq and the successes we are having is more often then not incomplete and/or deliberately de-emphasized. In short, the Post is all about agenda journalism. They are making a transparent canard of their supposed journalistic objectivity. One need look no further then today's Washington Post reporting on Iraq to see the formula of agenda journalism in action:

At Least 14 U.S Soldiers Die in Attacks in Iraq
U.S. Forces Continue Efforts to Oust Insurgents From Diyala Province

By John Ward Anderson and Howard Schneider
Washington Post Foreign Service
Thursday, June 21, 2007; 10:06 AM

BAGHDAD, June 21 -- Fourteen U.S. soldiers have died in scattered attacks in Iraq over the last two days, including five killed Thursday by a roadside bomb in a northeastern Baghdad neighborhood, the military said in a series of statements.

With a major U.S. effort to oust insurgents underway in Diyala province north of the Iraqi capital, a series of five attacks elsewhere claimed the lives of American soldiers on patrol in Baghdad, in the restive Al Anbar province, and southwest of the capital.

Few details were released. But the military said that the deadliest attack involved a unit working with the Iraqi Security Force to "clear and control" a section of northeastern Baghdad. Along with the five U.S. soldiers who were killed, three Iraqi civilians and one Iraqi interpreter died, and one other soldier and two Iraqi civilians were injured.

In other incidents, a U.S. soldier died and three were wounded when a rocket-propelled grenade struck their vehicle in northern Baghdad early this morning; four U.S. soldiers died yesterday when a roadside bomb detonated near a convoy in western Baghdad; two Marines were killed Wednesday during combat operations in Al Anbar province; and two other Marines died and four were injured by an explosive device near their vehicle southwest of Baghdad.

As part of a surge of some 28,500 additional troops into Iraq, U.S. forces have moved more deeply into Baghdad neighborhoods in an effort to flush out insurgents, and American officials have said that an increase in casualties was likely.

The series of attacks in the last two days occurred away from the scene of a major U.S. offensive unfolding north of Baghdad, where U.S. and Iraqi forces are attempting to stamp out the Sunni extremist group al-Qaeda in Iraq from the city of Baqubah. . . .

Only after dwelling on the casualties does the Washington Post get to the news from the Iraq War. In all fairness to the Post, this is one of the rare articles when the Post actually fleshes out the activities of our forces in Iraq:

About 10,000 U.S. and Iraqi troops are participating in the new offensive, called Arrowhead Ripper, which began early Tuesday in Diyala, a mixed Sunni-Shiite-Kurdish province north and east of Baghdad that, in recent months, has become a stronghold of al-Qaeda in Iraq and the most violent area in the country outside of the capital. Forty-one insurgents and one American soldier were killed in two days of fighting, the U.S. military said Wednesday.

"We have found three warehouses and factories where car bombs cars were built, as well as large stashes of TNT and mortar rounds used to make" roadside bombs, said Mohammed al-Askari, an Iraqi Defense Ministry spokesman. "We also found the swords that they used to slaughter people in their so-called courts, in addition to sniper rifles and silencers."

The U.S. military said in a statement that five weapons caches had been found and that 25 roadside bombs and five booby-trapped houses had been discovered and destroyed.

A U.S. military spokesman, Lt. Col. Christopher C. Garver, said the military was investigating the mistaken bombing of a house in the Khatoon neighborhood of Baqubah on Wednesday. The incident occurred when soldiers decided to destroy a heavily booby-trapped residence with an aircraft bomb, but the bomb hit the wrong house, Garver said. He said it was unknown whether there were any casualties in the strike. Later, a helicopter destroyed the targeted house with a Hellfire missile, and there were large secondary explosions, Garver said.

Askari said that the offensive "has developed greatly" and that U.S.-led forces were starting a "second phase by surrounding and isolating the areas in which the terrorists are located."

The U.S. military has been sharply criticized -- particularly from within its own ranks -- for earlier offensives against al-Qaeda in Iraq and other Sunni insurgents that allowed them to slip away and regroup in other areas. As soon as U.S. forces withdrew, the insurgents typically returned.

This time, military planners are trying to avoid that outcome by drawing a tight ring around Baqubah that locks insurgents inside, where they can be captured or killed. The challenge was illustrated Tuesday by the capture of six uninjured men who were trying to escape from Baqubah in an Iraqi ambulance, the U.S. military said in a statement.

Commanders "said we need to cordon off the city and control access in and out, which is what we did yesterday morning, and now we are very deliberately doing house-to-house clearing," said Capt. Jon Korneliussen, a U.S. military spokesman. "Many houses were wired with explosives."

. . . Sunni fighters from a variety of insurgent groups that have fought U.S. forces in the past -- including the Islamic Army and the 1920 Revolution Brigades -- were now working closely with U.S. and Iraqi forces in the offensive, helping them identify al-Qaeda in Iraq members and facilities. The fighters, operating under an umbrella group called the United Jihad Factions Council, have been issued special insignias to distinguish them from al-Qaeda in Iraq members, he said. . . .

Liberal Bias In The Media?

2007-06-21T12:58:00.000-04:00

Who would have thought it?
Is anyone surprised by the fact that journalists give money to liberals and the far left at a rate nine to every one journalist who gives to a republican or conservative cause:

MSNBC.com identified 144 journalists who made political contributions from 2004 through the start of the 2008 campaign, according to the public records of the Federal Election Commission. Most of the newsroom checkbooks leaned to the left: 125 journalists gave to Democrats and liberal causes. Only 17 gave to Republicans. Two gave to both parties.

Read the entire story here.

Dem Hypocrisy & The Employee Free Choice Act

2007-06-21T10:30:00.000-04:00

I have blogged on The Employee Free Choice Act several times (see here, here, here, here, and here), noting that it is a horrendous bill that would strip American workers of their most basic of democratic rights - the right to a secret ballot. I have also noted that the Democratic party is behind this bill in toto, including each of the Democratic presidential hopefuls. Their hypocrisy in supporting this legislation is breathtaking.

George Will has added to the arguments against the Employee Free Choice Act today with some some interesting facts that you won't find on Clinton's or Obama's website:

. . . [On Tuesday,] unions were demonstrating in support of legislation with the Orwellian title ``Employee Free Choice Act.'' It would deny employees the choice of a secret ballot when voting on unionization of their workplace. Instead, union organizers would use the ``card check'' system, which allows them to pick the voters they want: Once a majority of workers -- exposed one at a time to face-to-face pressure from union organizers -- sign a union card, the union is automatically certified as the bargaining agent for all the workers.

The Supreme Court has said that the card-check system is ``admittedly inferior to the election process.'' Hillary Clinton, who has given herself a makeover as a moderate, and who was elected by secret ballots, and who hopes that next year voters will use their secret ballots to give to her the power to nominate Supreme Court justices, nevertheless toes labor's line when she advocates abolishing workers' right to a secret ballot. Abolition, she says, will ``create a fair and level playing field between workers and employers.''

When in March the House passed card-check legislation for unpersuasive unions, a principal sponsor was George Miller, D-Calif., who in 2001 wrote, with 15 colleagues, to Mexican officials, on behalf of the rights of Mexican workers, insisting ``that the secret ballot is absolutely necessary in order to ensure that workers are not intimidated into voting for a union they might not otherwise choose.'' . .

Read the entire story here. The hypocrisy of Democrats and their willingness to injure workers and sacrifice the economy to payback Big Labour is horrendous. How any but the unhinged far left, anti-capitalist socialists and comunists, and the irredeemably gullible can vote for these people is beyond me.

Bringing Dems & The Far Left Together Results In Clarity

2007-06-21T07:35:00.000-04:00

There is a certain kind of symbiosis that occurs when the far left, steeped in narcissim and wholly unmoored from reality, meets with the senior Democratic leadership who are cynically using the far left and being used by them. Gone is talk of the surge, or any pretense that it matters a wit. Gone is the pretext that our generals might be incompent or less then honest. Gone is the fiction that Iraq is in a civil war. Gone is talk of succeeding in Iraq and leaving it with a stable government. Gone is talk of our national interests or national security. Gone is talk of "supporting the troops" who are fighting and dying in Iraq. Gone is any consideration of the costs of surrendering in Iraq. Gone, in short, is all the spin and prevarication.

What is left from this symbiosis is the pure and unadulterated truth. The far left believe that the '06 election was their victory alone. The far left want their agenda to control the Democratic Party. The far left want nothing less then the complete repudiation of any policies dealing with conservatives or George Bush. The far left wants an immediate end to the war with no consideration of the cost. The far left wants us out of Iraq whether we are succeeding or not. And the Democratic leadership has bought in - they are part and parcel of the far left in America today. Observe the symbiosis in action:

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) yesterday reaffirmed her commitment to end the war in Iraq, but her words were greeted with skepticism and some boos by anti-war liberal activists.

Addressing the liberal pressure group Campaign for America’s Future, Pelosi called the war in Iraq a “tragedy” and a “grotesque mistake,” but her words elicited catcalls for her to do more.

. . . The Democratic-led Congress has taken a pounding in recent opinion polls, with many Democratic voters unhappy that lawmakers have not been able to change President Bush’s policies in Iraq. Noting that Bush vetoed legislation setting a timeline for withdrawal last month, Pelosi explained to the audience why the Democrats cannot enact stringent benchmarks or set a date to begin withdrawing U.S. troops.

“We don’t have 60 votes in the Senate or the president’s signature … those are facts and obstacles,” Pelosi said.

“Those are facts, those are obstacles; we have to overcome them and we cannot wait until November 2008 to do so,” she added. “Your impatience with the war is totally justified.”

But she did not offer details about how House Democrats might use the 2008 House defense appropriations bill to force Bush’s hand to end the U.S. commitment to Iraq. Some Democrats have discussed two measures, introduced by Reps. David Price (D-N.C.) and Ellen Tauscher (D-Calif.), respectively, which would revoke Bush’s authority to wage war in Iraq.

Even Rep. John Murtha (D-Pa.), a leading anti-war Democrat and close Pelosi ally, did not escape the taunting as he introduced Pelosi.

“She’s worked tirelessly to end” this war, Murtha said.

“No she hasn’t,” shouted a woman in the crowd.

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) acknowledged the same political landscape last week.

“We raised the bar too high. [The public] thought we could continue to send the bill back to the president — with 49 [guaranteed] votes, we couldn’t do that,” he said.

Reid announced last week that there would be votes on amendments to the defense spending bill that would withdraw troops within 120 days of passage, set strong troop readiness standards, and block spending on a future military presence in Iraq after April 2008.

Speaking before Pelosi, Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton’s (D-N.Y.) troubles with the anti-war left were also on display, as her Iraq talking points were met with boos for the second year in a row.

Despite boasting of her vote against the most recent Iraq supplemental spending bill, Clinton was still hit by anti-war groups, including the persistent members of Code Pink.

Shouts of “Get us out” and “Stop the war” were audible throughout Clinton’s remarks, but the part of her speech devoted to the war sparked widespread boos that eventually yielded to an outbreak of cheers and support from Clinton’s supporters in the room.

“I see the signs [that read] ‘Get us out of Iraq now,’” Clinton said. “That is what we are trying to do.”

A number of those attending said they were undecided on the 2008 race, but several of those interviewed by The Hill said they could not vote for Clinton because of her war record.

“I thought it was the same old, same old,” Carol Dragone, of Virginia Beach, Va., said of Clinton’s speech. “I don’t know how you can change so quick.”

Dragone and others said Clinton and Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.) seemed insincere in their denunciation of the war, particularly after casting several votes to continue funding. . .

Read the story here.

Fred on the Employee Free Choice Act

2007-06-20T22:57:00.000-04:00

There is a particularly odious bit of anti-democratic, anti-business legislation making its way through the Congress. The Orwellian named legislation is called the Employee Free Choice Act. It is anything but. It is legislation that would do away with the most fundemental democratic right of all Americans, a secret ballot, in the context of choosing whether to unionize. It is a gold engraved invitation to invidious intimidation and coercion by unions. Yet the Democrats are quite willing to impose this system on American employees. And it is no secret why. The Democrats care far more about the money that they can raise from unions then they care either about employees, businesses, or the drain on the economy that many unions in fact are today.

As the NYT reported today:

Senate Democratic leaders moved Tuesday to force a vote on organized labor’s top legislative priority, a bill that would make it far easier to organize workers. . .

The bill, already approved by the House but facing the threat of a veto by the Bush administration, would give employees at a workplace the right to unionize as soon as a majority signed cards saying they wanted to do so. Under current law, an employer can insist on a secret-ballot election, even after a majority sign.

Union leaders see enactment of the bill as the single most important step toward reversing labor’s long-term loss of membership and might. Virtually all Democrats in Congress are backing the legislation, partly because they recognize that a stronger labor movement, providing campaign contributions and volunteers, could translate into a stronger Democratic Party.

Business groups have mounted a big fight against the bill, with one organization, the Center for Union Facts, spending $500,000 on newspaper and broadcast advertisements this week alone.

. . . John J. Sweeney, [a union] president, expressed confidence that the bill would fare better if a Democrat won the White House next year. “This is really about 2009,” Mr. Sweeney said. “But it’s important that we show the country that we have majority support.” . .

Read the NYT article here. Although the Times, fails to tell us, Big Labor held a demonstration today, bussing in a crowd of people to support this economic time bomb. Hillary and the other Democratic presidential hopefuls were there to establish their bona fides as Big Labour supporters, but the man leading the charge was Teddy Kennedy - possibly the most destructive influence in American politics over the past half century other then Jimmy Carter:

Big Labor bussed thousands of activists to Capitol Hill Tuesday to lobby for the Employee Free Choice Act—an act union leaders have called their top legislative priority for the 110th Congress.

Event organizers claimed they brought 2,000 participants on 62 busses from the Campaign for America’s Future’s “Take Back America” conference to the Upper Senate Park.

There, a parade of Democratic congressmen and senators delivered hard-line progressive rhetoric to their pro-union advocates.

Sen. Ted Kennedy (D.-Mass.) furiously ripped up a full-page advertisement sponsored by the Center for Union Facts that was published that morning in the New York Times, USA Today and Roll Call.

The Center for Union Facts opposes the act, and their advertisement featured a large quotation: “There’s no reason to subject the workers to an election.” This quotation appeared with the question, “Who said it?” and displays photos of the former President of Uganda Idi Amin, President of Iran Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and President of the Union of Needletrades, Industrial and Textile Employees Bruce Raynor.

Kennedy held the advertisement high and said, “Here is that advertisement! They say there is no reason to subject the workers to elections. [It asks,] 'Who said it?' And then it says union bosses are pressuring the Senate to change the rules on union organizing. Learn about their scheme to eliminate workers’ right to a secret ballot at Union Facts.com. This is what I say to that!”

At that point Kennedy tore the advertisement into shreds-- an act that drew wild applause from the crowd.

Small print at the bottom of the Center for Union Facts’ ad reveals the quotation came from Raynor. The quotation was published in a May 31, 2003 article by the New York Times titled “Labor Turns to a Pivotal Organizing Drive.”

Read the full article here. Ted Kennedy is the low mark of the American electoral system. But while he and all other Democrats hypocritically support this bill, Fred Thompson does not. And in his usual clear prose, Fred tells us why:

There was a time in America when local governments and employers could take advantage of powerless workers. Unions formed as a result. Nowadays, government generally sides with, instead of against, unions. The single biggest advantage unions have, of course, is collective bargaining rights – the right to negotiate for whole groups of employees.

Even with these advantages, however, unions have been losing membership in every sector but government -- which is another story. In the last 25 or so years, private sector union membership has dropped from about 19 percent to under 8 percent today. Most decertification votes, giving workers the chance to end union representation, go against the unions.

One reason unions have alienated potential members is that they often focus on politics instead of supporting their members. Last week, in fact, the Supreme Court ruled unanimously against a Washington state teachers union that had been spending dues on political activities -- against the wishes of individual teachers. Some of those who protested the use of the funds weren't even union members but had to pay to keep their teachers' jobs.

This week, though, the unions are going to try something that could reverse their long decline. The Senate will vote on a measure the House has already passed that would do away with secret ballots on votes to unionize. This would allow union officials to visit individual workers separately to persuade them to sign a card in favor of the union. Given the rather colorful history of some labor unions, it’s not hard to understand why so many people think this is a very bad idea.

Nevertheless, the current congress may in fact pass it. Unions give a lot of their members'-- and nonmembers'-- dues to political candidates, and they're really good at providing free labor to campaigns. So they have a lot of influence in certain parts of congress. That may explain, for example, why the House Appropriations Committee is apparently planning to cut the budget of the Office of Labor Management Services -- the office that investigates illegalities by unions.

Let me restate the obvious. In America, we need the right to join a union. We also need the right not to join a union.

Read the entire article here.

Hamas & A (Pea)Nut Case

2007-06-20T18:29:00.000-04:00

Former President and North Georgia peanut farmer James Earl Carter is in the news today. Other then announcing the building of another house by Habitat For Humanity, Jimmy Carter in the news is rarely if ever a good thing - either for America specifically or the forces of civilization more generally. And Carter today is true to disastrous form, in the news giving his full support to yet another terrorist group in the Middle East. Today he is pontificating as to why the West should support Hamas rather then take a golden opportunity to isolate Hamas and throw the West's support behind elements that might actually lead to peace with Israel. Carter, like a particularly bad train wreck, demands attention out of sheer horrified curiosity.

Former President Jimmy Carter accused the U.S., Israel and the European Union on Tuesday of seeking to divide the Palestinian people by reopening aid to President Mahmoud Abbas' new government in the West Bank while denying the same to the Hamas-controlled Gaza Strip.

Carter, a Nobel Peace Prize winner who was addressing a human rights conference in Ireland, also said the Bush administration's refusal to accept Hamas' 2006 election victory was ''criminal.''

Carter said Hamas, besides winning a fair and democratic mandate that should have entitled it to lead the Palestinian government, had proven itself to be far more organized in its political and military showdowns with Abbas' moderate Fatah movement.

. . . Carter said the consensus of the U.S., Israel and the EU to start funneling aid to Abbas' new government in the West Bank but continue blocking Hamas in the Gaza Strip represented an ''effort to divide Palestinians into two peoples.''

''All efforts of the international community should be to reconcile the two, but there's no effort from the outside to bring the two together,'' he said.

The U.S. and European countries cut off the Hamas-led government last year because of the Islamic militant group's refusal to renounce violence and recognize Israel. They have continued to send humanitarian aid to Gaza through the United Nations and other organizations.

In the latest crisis, the U.S., Israel and much of the West have been trying to shore up Abbas in hopes that the West Bank can be made into a democratic example that would bring along Gaza.

During his speech to Ireland's annual Forum on Human Rights, the 83-year-old former president said monitors from his Carter Center observed the 2006 election that Hamas won. He said the vote was ''orderly and fair'' . . .

. . . Carter said the U.S. and Israel, with European Union acquiescence, sought to subvert the outcome by shunning Hamas and helping Abbas to keep the reins of political and military power.

''That action was criminal,'' he said in a news conference after his speech.

''The United States and Israel decided to punish all the people in Palestine and did everything they could to deter a compromise between Hamas and Fatah,'' he said.

Read the entire story here.

Just a couple of things. One, no entity has a "right" to foreign aid. Witholding foreign aid is not a punishment. We have every right to pick and choose to whom we give foreign aid and to tie it into the goals of our country. Two, the fact that Hamas regularly practices terrorism does not seem to bother Carter, though it bothers most of the rest of the civilized world. Three, Hamas has spent the past few days in an orgy of bloodlust and anarchy, murdering people in the street in front of their families. And Hamas has announced that they intend to impose Sharia law on a populace that has never voted for that. Do we want to do anything to support such people? Four, Hamas is dedicated not to peace, but to the descruction of Israel. Just how is promoting Hamas going to lead to a greater chance for peace? And lastly, Germany voted for Hitler in the 30's. Should we have supported him and Germany strictly for that reason?

To put Carter's support for Hamas in perspective, one must understand that the peanut farmer is a utopian liberal who has never evinced a firm grip on reality. Indeed, Carter's Presidential legacy is his role in lighting the match that turned radical Islam from the small pile of dry kindling that it was in the 70's into the conflagration that we face now. Please read this from today's Jerusalem Post:

We just don't get it. The Left in America is screaming to high heaven that the mess we are in in Iraq and the war on terrorism has been caused by the right-wing and that George W. Bush, the so-called "dim-witted cowboy," has created the entire mess.

The truth is the entire nightmare can be traced back to the liberal democratic policies of the leftist Jimmy Carter, who created a firestorm that destabilized our greatest ally in the Muslim world, the shah of Iran, in favor of a religious fanatic, the ayatollah Khomeini.

Carter viewed Khomeini as more of a religious holy man in a grassroots revolution than a founding father of modern terrorism. Carter's ambassador to the UN, Andrew Young, said "Khomeini will eventually be hailed as a saint." Carter's Iranian ambassador, William Sullivan, said, "Khomeini is a Gandhi-like figure." Carter adviser James Bill proclaimed in a Newsweek interview on February 12, 1979 that Khomeini was not a mad mujahid, but a man of "impeccable integrity and honesty."

The shah was terrified of Carter. He told his personal confidant, "Who knows what sort of calamity he [Carter] may unleash on the world?"

Let's look at the results of Carter's misguided liberal policies: the Islamic Revolution in Iran; the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan (Carter's response was to boycott the 1980 Moscow Olympics); the birth of Osama bin Laden's terrorist organization; the Iran-Iraq War, which cost the lives of millions dead and wounded; and yes, the present war on terrorism and the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq.

WHEN CARTER entered the political fray in 1976, America was still riding the liberal wave of anti-Vietnam War emotion. Carter asked for an in-depth report on Iran even before he assumed the reins of government and was persuaded that the shah was not fit to rule Iran. 1976 was a banner year for pacifism: Carter was elected president, Bill Clinton became attorney-general of Arkansas, and Albert Gore won a place in the Tennessee House of Representatives.

In his anti-war pacifism, Carter never got it that Khomeini, a cleric exiled to Najaf in Iraq from 1965-1978, was preparing Iran for revolution. Proclaiming "the West killed God and wants us to bury him," Khomeini's weapon of choice was not the sword but the media. Using tape cassettes smuggled by Iranian pilgrims returning from the holy city of Najaf, he fueled disdain for what he called gharbzadegi ("the plague of Western culture").

Carter pressured the shah to make what he termed human rights concessions by releasing political prisoners and relaxing press censorship. Khomeini could never have succeeded without Carter. The Islamic Revolution would have been stillborn.

Gen. Robert Huyser, Carter's military liaison to Iran, once told me in tears: "The president could have publicly condemned Khomeini and even kidnapped him and then bartered for an exchange with the [American Embassy] hostages, but the president was indignant. 'One cannot do that to a holy man,' he said."

Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has donned the mantle of Ayatollah Khomeini, taken up bin Laden's call, and is fostering an Islamic apocalyptic revolution in Iraq with the intent of taking over the Middle East and the world.

Jimmy Carter became the poster boy for the ideological revolution of the 1960s in the West, hell bent on killing the soul of America. The bottom line: Carter believed then and still does now is that evil really does not exist; people are basically good; America should embrace the perpetrators and castigate the victims.

IN THE '60S it was mass rebellion after the assassinations of Robert Kennedy and Martin Luther King. When humanity confronts eternity, the response is always rebellion or repentance. The same ideologues who fought to destroy the soul of America with the "God is dead" movement in the 1960s are now running the arts, the universities, the media, the State Department, Congress, and Senate, determined more then ever to kill the soul of America while the East attempts to kill the body. Carter's world view defines the core ideology of the Democratic Party.

What is going on in Iraq is no mystery to those of us who have had our fingers on the pulse of both Iran and Iraq for decades. The Iran-Iraq war was a war of ideologies. Saddam Hussein saw himself as an Arab leader who would defeat the non-Arab Persians. Khomeini saw it as an opportunity to export his Islamic Revolution across the borders to the Shi'ites in Iraq and then beyond to the Arab countries.

Throughout the war both leaders did everything possible to incite the inhabitants of each country to rebel - precisely what Iran is doing in Iraq today. Khomeini encouraged the Shi'ites across the border to remove Saddam from power and establish an Islamic republic like in Iran.

Carter's belief that every crisis can be resolved with diplomacy - and nothing but diplomacy - now permeates the Democratic Party. Unfortunately, Carter is wrong.

There are times when evil must be openly confronted and defeated.

KHOMEINI HAD the help of the PLO in Iran. They supplied weapons and terrorists to murder Iranians and incite mobs in the streets. No wonder Yasser Arafat was hailed as a friend of Khomeini after he seized control of Iran and was given the Israeli Embassy in Teheran with the PLO flag flying overhead.

The Carter administration scrambled to assure the new regime that the United States would maintain diplomatic ties with Iran. But on April 1, 1979 the greatest April Fools' joke of all time was played, as Khomeini proclaimed it the first day of the government of God.

In February 1979 Khomeini had boarded an Air France flight to return to Teheran with the blessing of Jimmy Carter. The moment he arrived, he proclaimed: "I will kick his teeth in" - referring to then prime minister Shapour Bakhtiar, who was left in power with a US pledge of support. He was assassinated in Paris by Iranian agents in 1991.

I sat in the home of Gen. Huyser, who told me the shah feared he would lose the country if he implemented Carter's polices. Carter had no desire to see the shah remain in power. He really believed that a cleric - whose Islamist fanaticism he did not understand in the least - would be better for human rights and Iran.

He could have changed history by condemning Khomeini and getting the support of our allies to keep him out of Iran.

Read the entire story here. Some people are born to be great leaders. Others are born to be peanut farmers. I think it safe to say, at this point, that membership in one group wholly precludes membership in the other.

Fred's Remarks to the Brits

2007-06-20T08:15:00.000-04:00

This is a partial transcript of Fred Thompson's wide ranging remarks to a meeting the Policy Exchange in London yesterday. Fred's topics are the relationship between Britain and America, our shared goals, the need to be proactive in shaping events, and the perfidy of Europe in light of threats against whom Britain and the US are shouldering the lion's share of the burden. As always, Fred is hitting all the right notes and not pulling punches:

. . . congratulate Mr. Brown, and I wish him well as the 53rd prime minister of the United Kingdom. And if you’ll allow me a word about the 52nd … we’ll miss him. There are disputes of party here that are strictly British affairs. But sometimes the better points of statesmen possibly are seen more clearly at a distance.

We are profoundly grateful for the friendship of the British people, and in America we’ll always remember Mr. Blair as a gallant friend, even when it did him no good politically.

When we in the States take the measure of your leaders, their party affiliation doesn’t really count for a whole lot. It’s been this way for a while now, at every moment when it mattered. It was true in the days of Churchill and Roosevelt … of Thatcher and Reagan … and Blair and Bush.

Differences of party and domestic policy are incidental, compared to the bigger considerations that define Britain and America as allies. On both sides of the Atlantic, what matters most are the commitments we share, and the work we are called to do in common. This work is based upon the principles we hold – primarily, the right of free people to govern themselves. We also believe that the rule of law, market economies, property rights, and trade with other nations are the underpinnings of a free society.

When historians of the modern era speak of the great democracies, of civilization and its defenders, that’s us they’re talking about – we and our democratic friends across Europe and beyond.

In the long progress of the world toward liberty, it was not by chance that this lowly province of the Roman Empire became a great teacher of democracy and the model of self-government. And it wasn’t just luck that turned a troublesome British colony into the inspiration for all those who seek freedom. There is a reason why Britain and America were thrown together as partners in this world. The things that unite the American and British peoples? They don’t change with the names of leaders or with the passing of years.

It was Harold MacMillan who best summed up the shared experiences of British and American leaders in the last century. In his later years, Lord Stockton was asked what he considered the greatest challenge in all his years as a statesman. And in that English way, he put it in a word: “Events, my dear boy, events.”

Events often have a way of intruding upon the plans of free people. As a rule, people in democratic societies prefer to take care of the business of life. They raise families. They work and they trade. They create wealth and they share it. Above all in free societies, we live by the law – and, at our best, we look after one another, too. Yet in every generation, “events” can be counted on to change the plan, sometimes in tragic ways.

Often the cause of our grief is a misplaced trust in the good intentions of others. In our dealings with other nations, people in free countries are not the type to go looking for trouble. We tend to extend our good will to other nations, assuming that it will be returned in kind. No matter how clear the signals, sometimes in history even the best of men failed to act in time to prevent the worst from happening.

The United States and the United Kingdom have learned this lesson both ways – in great evils ignored, and in great evils averted. We learned it from a World War that happened and, in the decades afterward, from the World War that didn’t happen.

We must conclude that the greatest test of leadership – in your country or mine, in this time or any other – can be simply stated. We must shape events, and not be left at their mercy. And in all things, to protect ourselves and to assure the peace, the great democracies of the world must stick together. We must be willing to make tough decisions today in order to avert bigger problems tomorrow. We must be prepared to meet threats before threats become tragedies.

These are not considerations relevant only to the people of Great Britain and the United States. The relationship between the United States and all of Europe is valued by both sides and has benefited the world. NATO has not only been an effective tool for our efforts, it symbolizes our commonality.

Changes in leadership on both sides of the Atlantic will give us new opportunities. Often in the history of nations, leaders rise to meet the times. These times require those with the wisdom and courage to see past the next election cycle.

The United States and our European allies must begin to forge a new understanding that matches the times we live in. This must be an understanding based upon candor if we are to come closer to agreement as to the nature of the challenges we face.

I have great hope for such a new understanding among NATO allies. We would never want to look back on a campaign we’d undertaken to realize we’d fallen short for lack of commitment or material support. Today our enemies do not doubt our military strength. They do question our determination. Our efforts will require ongoing dialogue based upon mutual respect and mutual interests.

For many Americans, there is a concern that even among our friends, some people are instinctively uncomfortable with U.S. power. Some on the Continent speak of the need for Europe to balance U.S. influence. Americans worry that this sentiment could, over time, lead to an uncoupling of the alliance. And if constraining U.S. power is that important, would our European friends be comfortable with other powers serving as a counterweight to the United States?

Some who seek to check U.S. power believe that legitimacy may only be conferred by international consensus as represented by the UN Security Council. They ask, “If a country can invade another nation for its own good reasons, what is the logical stopping point?”

The American response is to ask how, then, does one justify non-Security-Council-sanctioned actions, such as Kosovo? What are nations allowed to do when the UN cannot muster the political will to act? How many countries must be involved in an action before legitimacy is conferred? Is it just European countries that count? And, how do we deal with problems in concert when many of us don’t agree on the extent or nature of the problem?

For our part, we in the United States must make a better case for our views and our actions. It is possible that things that are perfectly obvious to us may not be so obvious even to those who wish us well. We must be willing to listen and we must be willing to share our intelligence to the maximum extent appropriate.

We must be prepared to make our case not just privately, but to the people of Europe and the world in order to build political support for cooperation. The world is not stronger if America is weaker – or is perceived to be weaker. The same is true of Britain and truer still of our NATO alliance. And we must be capable of making that case.

In return, it is fair to expect that our allies will not put their trade and commercial interests above world security. It is also fair to ask that Europeans consider the consequences if they are wrong about the threat to the Western world.

Many in Europe simply have a different view from that of the United States as to the threat of radical Islamic fundamentalism. They think that the threat is overblown. That despite September 11th, and July 7th and other attacks in Europe and elsewhere, America is the main target and therefore the problem is basically an American one. The fact that no weapons of mass destruction were found in Iraq at a particular point in time resolves the matter for them. Also, they see no meaningful connection between terrorist groups and countries like Iran.

Admittedly, even some in America think that the threat is overblown, and that if we had not gone into Iraq, we’d have no terrorism problem.

However, most Americans feel differently. We understand that the Western world is in an international struggle with jihadists who see this struggle as part of a conflict that has gone on for centuries, and who won’t give up until Western countries are brought to their knees. I agree with this view. I believe that the forces of civilization must work together with common purpose to defeat the terrorists who for their own twisted purposes have murdered thousands, and who are trying to acquire technology to murder millions more.

When terrorists in their video performances pledge more and bigger attacks to come, against targets in both Europe and America, these are not to be shrugged off as idle boasts. They must be taken at their word.

When the president of Iran shares his nightmare visions before cheering crowds, those are not just the fanatic’s version of an empty applause line. The only safe assumption is that he means it. If we know anything from modern history, it is that when fanatical tyrants pledge to “wipe out” an entire nation, we should listen. We must gather our alliance, and do all in our power to make sure that such men do not gain the capability to carry out their evil ambitions.

Of course, diplomacy is always to be preferred in our dealings with dangerous regimes. But I believe diplomacy, as Franklin Roosevelt put it, is more than “note writing.” The words of our leaders command much closer attention from adversaries when it is understood that we and our allies are prepared to use force when force is necessary.

The campaign in Afghanistan is a prime example of this, both as a largely successful effort against a terrorist state and as a logical extension of the mission of NATO, which now reaches far beyond the boundaries of Europe.

As in Iraq, the effort has involved great sacrifice from the brave sons and daughters of Britain. By their valor, and by the sustained action of NATO in Afghanistan, we have shown our seriousness of purpose against terrorism … an ability to move beyond the military models of Cold War days … and a capacity to shift tactics and technology to fight an enemy who defends no state and observes no code.

Even in the midst of all the divisiveness with regard to our actions in Iraq, the United States, Great Britain and our coalition should be proud of what we have averted. Imagine Saddam Hussein and his murderous sons in power today successfully defying the international community and free to pursue weapons programs.

Of course political realism is back in the ascendancy since the difficulties in Iraq. It’s true that we have learned that geography, history, and ethnicity are important factors to consider in making decisions regarding today’s enemies.

We’ve also been reminded of the importance of preparation, of alliances, and the continuing support of our people.

But that does not change the fact that we sometimes must address events in far-away places that endanger our people. Or that we believe in universal values that do not allow us to ignore wholesale human suffering.

Realism? Yes. But also idealism, which is what makes us different from our enemies.

We should also remember that beyond the War on Terror, there are other threats we must meet together that extend well into the future. One way or another, the challenges we face today will recede. Other challenges to our shared interests and security have not been waiting patiently in line for our attention.

Some cannot yet be seen, but it is obvious that our energy needs for example are not going away. Disruptions in energy supplies, sharp price increases and thuggish behavior by energy suppliers are threats to all democracies with growing economies. Also, rapid military build-ups by non-democratic nations should be of concern.

More and more, if things go wrong in disputes that were once considered just regional problems, there will be no “over there” or “over here.” We’ll all be affected. Globalization is not limited to economic matters. As we go through these perilous times, we must keep firmly in mind the things that bind us together, not disagreements.

We’ve been through a lot together, our two nations – and not just in the storied exploits of our parents’ generation. Though there are many moments in British political history from which leaders today can take instruction, there is one in particular that I’ve always admired in the career of Sir Winston Churchill.

It was when Neville Chamberlain died in November 1940. In memorializing in the House of Commons his longtime adversary, Churchill pronounced the bitter controversies put to rest. He said, quote, “History with its flickering lamp stumbles along the trail of the past, trying to reconstruct its scenes, to revive its echoes, and kindle with pale gleams the passion of former days.”

In the end, he reflected, “The only guide to a man is his conscience; the only shield to his memory is the rectitude and sincerity of his actions.” We are “so often mocked by the failure of our hopes and the upsetting of our calculations; but with this shield, however the fates may play, we march always in the ranks of honour.”

Maybe it’s the actor in me that admires this scene so much. It’s a moment that no script-writer could improve upon. I am struck by its spirit, the magnanimity and generosity of the man … the willingness to let old arguments go, and move on to great objectives held in common.

We in this alliance have had our own share of hopes mocked and plans upset. And now it is time to shake off the disappointments, to let go of controversies past, and to press on together toward the great objectives. To ensure security for our people. To be a force for stability in the world. To remain the stalwart friends of freedom.

For our part, we in the United States have never had occasion to doubt the fortitude and faithfulness of the British people. As much as ever, we count ourselves lucky to call the United Kingdom our closest ally, and we are proud to call you our finest friend.

Read the full transcript here.

Paul Ponders Grill Work

2007-06-19T13:58:00.000-04:00

So what would you do if someone dropped the equivalent of $200,000 dollars in your lap? I am sure each of us has their own thoughts, but for the world's next great tenor, Paul Potts, the answer is to pay down bills and get your teeth fixed:

Singing mobile phone salesman Paul Potts woke up £100,000 richer today after winning television show Britain's Got Talent, and revealed that he will spend part of his prize money clearing debts and improving his teeth.

Paul Potts, 36, won over the nation with a performance of Nessun Dorma in the final of the hit ITV1 talent show, watched by 12.1 million viewers.

The former Tesco shelf-stacker from Port Talbot, South Wales, will now perform in front of the Queen at the Royal Variety Performance.

Potts said that his win had not yet sunk in but that he was planning to pay off his £30,000 debts - although he was not 100-per cent sure about giving up his day job.

Potts spent £12,000 on singing lessons before deciding his dream was not meant to be. He began stacking shelves in Tesco but had to quit work because of a spell of ill health.

Doctors treated him for appendicitis and removed a benign tumour, while Potts also broke his collarbone.

He landed a job at Carphone Warehouse after battling back to health and married a woman he met on the internet.

Today Potts said: "There are a few people who are going to want me to pay off some debts.

"Two years off sick knocks you for six when all you have to live on is your credit card. I had to work hard just to keep my head above water.

"I still can't believe I'm in this position. I don't know how long it's going to take to sink in. At the moment it's all a bit of a haze."

Potts, who has also landed a record deal with Simon Cowell, the TV show judge, said of fixing his teeth: "I'm not sure about veneers but I do want to get the crown repaired. It would be nice to be able to smile naturally. I feel very self conscious about it at the moment. But whatever I do I'm not going to change who I am."

"I'm a team leader at Carphone Warehouse but I don't think anybody is expecting me back. I'll just see what happens," he added.

Potts said of his wife, Julie Ann: "I would like to treat her to a nice holiday, maybe a safari. That would be a nice luxury item."

Read the entire story here. If for any reason you missed any of Paul's incredibly moving performances in the Britain's Got Talent show, please see here, here, and here. Paul's voice is so good, his personal story so sympathetic, and his demeanor so likeable, he may well be that very rarest of stars who appeals beyond his genre. He might well bring Opera to the unwashed masses . . . on both sides of the pond.

(H/T Dinah Lord)

Does This Washington Post Article Constitute News?

2007-06-19T06:23:00.000-04:00

It is hard to imagine how today's Washington Post article, "Iraq Sinking Fast," could be viewed as anything other then agenda journalism at its worst. It is particularly odious, coming as it does, on the first day of major offensives against al Qaeda. As our soldiers fight and die, the Post prints this tripe saying all is lost and it is time to give up. What a craven and despicable lot they are indeed.

The article is the Post's take on a report released by the "Fund for Peace," an organization that the Post tells us is a "research organization and advocacy group." The group says that Iraq is lost and we should leave it in three pieces. Does that sound familiar? Do Reid and Pelosi come to mind.

The ethically challenged Post does not tell us anything about the Fund for Peace that would allow its readers to judge the bias and validity of the Fund's message, but if you click on the Fund's website, you will learn that this is an organization that views all "violence as the last refuge of the incompetent." One almost expects to hear "Kumbiyah" playing in the background. A thorough check of the site reveals not a mention of any of the following: Wahhabi Islam, Khomeinism, Iran, radical Islam, al Qaeda, bin Laden, Zawahiri, nuclear terrorism, Anbar Awakening, counterinsurgeny, surge, 9-11, 7-7, etc. The fact that not just one, but all of these topics are ignored by the "Fund for Peace" might suggest to Post readers that what they are reading is not quite balanced and "reality based."

Of course you will find none of this in the Washington Post report. The Post is fine with merely reporting this groups anti Iraq war message without digging at all into its validitiy or bias. It is only the message that is important.

"The report tells us that Iraq is sinking fast," said Fund for Peace President Pauline Baker. "We believe it's reached the point of no return. We have recommended -- based on studies done every six months since the U.S. invasion -- that the administration face up to the reality that the only choices for Iraq are how and how violently it will break up."

In a parallel series of reports, the Fund for Peace, a research and advocacy group, suggests a policy of managed partition for Iraq.

Ah, such a wonderful thought. Let's just split up Iraq and then we can all get along. Letting alone for the moment that this plan wholly ignores the surge, this is dangerously, if not suicidally, sophmoric.

As a threshold matter, allowing the Kurds to form their own country or anything resembling such an entity in the north is an invitation to a military response from Turkey and quite possibly Iran, neither of whom are willing to tolerate anything resembling a Kurdish state to emerge from Iraq. Both see such as a major threat, given their own large Kurdish populations. Turkey has been quite open about what their response will be.

Two, the Sunnis, including Sunni insurgents, are in open revolt against al Qaeda in Iraq and, in the Sunni stronghold of Anbar, it would appear that the Sunnis are joining with the government. The plan to subdivide Iraq completely ignores those realities. But there is more. It would abandon the Sunni areas to be reoccupied by the better funded, better armed and incredibly brutal al Qaeda. And al Qaeads
is fighting to establish an Islamic state or caliphate in Iraq, not simply a portion of Iraq.

Lastly, if not most importantly, it leaves Shia Iraq to fall wholly under the influence of Iran. Iran is doing all it can at the moment to influence the Iraqi government, and indeed, in Sadr's Mahdi Army, it has something that is beginning to resemble a Hezbollah like proxy force. The greatest brake on Iranian influence at the moment is that even now, Shia's only hold a plurality in Iraq's government and thus must look to Kurds and Sunni legislators to govern. Neither the Sunnis nor the Kurds appear willing to tolerate Iranian influence. Yet to follow the partition plan would be to abandon the majority of Iraq directly to Iran.

Thanks for reporting this as news, Washington Post. We salute you for your integrity and patriotism. And we wish that your stock prices go the way of the New York Times.

Fred on Harry & Fred Crosses The Pond

2007-06-19T04:39:00.000-04:00

To the four or five people who regularly read this blog, you know how many times I have called for our political leaders to begin directly taking on the outrageous statements of Give 'Em Surrender Harry Reid and his far left band of power hungy surrendocrats occupying the darkest recesses of Congress. Why is it not surprising that the one man to step to the plate and start challenging Reid by name is Fred Thompson:

Well, you've heard by now that Senate leader Harry Reid insulted one of this country's brightest military minds, Marine Corps General Peter Pace -- calling him "incompetent." Let me take a few moments to put this in context.

First, Harry Reid voted for the war, like a majority of our legislators. America decided as a nation to free Iraq and the region from Saddam Hussein's tyranny. I have friends, both Democrat and Republican, who questioned the decision at the time, but the Republic made a commitment based on constitutional and democratic procedures. So they are now a hundred percent committed to moving forward in a way that’s best for our country. None of them, by the way, believe surrendering to the forces of terror in Iraq is what's best for our country.

Harry Reid, though, has taken a different route. He made his statement about General Pace on a conference call with fringe elements of the blogosphere who think we're the bad guys. This is a place where even those who think the 9/11 attacks were an inside job find a home.

And why shouldn't they think that? Reid has led the attack on the administration, with Nancy Pelosi, charging it lied and tricked America into supporting the war. Ignoring multiple hearings and investigations into pre-war intelligence findings that have debunked this paranoid myth, they accuse an entire administration of conspiracy to trick us into a war.

I suppose that's easier for some than admitting that they've flip flopped -- but the fact that Reid says this sinister Republican plot is going to help him elect more Democrats ought to be raising a few flags. Saying General Pace is incompetent doesn't even rank near the top of his bizarre statements.

How could anyone possibly believe, as Reid charges, that our commanding general in Iraq, David Petraeus, is out of touch with what's going on. Surely someone in Reid's position would know that Petraeus is briefed daily on all aspects of Iraq -- from civil to military. Surely he has to know that Petraeus is a true warrior scholar who literally wrote the Army's book on counterinsurgency warfare.

But Reid's comments are not meant for logical analysis. He proclaimed the war lost some time ago, and the surge as a failure even before the additional troops were on the ground. The problem is that every one of Reid's comments I've noted here has also been reported gleefully by Al Jazeera and other anti-American media. Whether he means to or not, he’s encouraging our enemies to believe that they are winning the critical war of will.

Read the entire article here. On other matters, in a bit of very Reaganesque political theatre (British spelling used deliberately), Fred has flown across the pond to, among other things, seek the blessings of Britain's Iron Lady, the former staunch Reagan ally, Margaret Thatcher. While there, Fred will be delivering a speech on foreign policy:

Thompson will deliver the foreign policy speech, "Strengthening the Transatlantic Alliance," on Tuesday at the Policy Exchange, a conservative think tank based in London.

It will stress the importance of American alliances abroad, his advisers said.

"The speech is mostly about the unique and special relationship between the U.S. and the U.K," an adviser said on condition of anonymity, because the prospective campaign has not publicly announced details of the address. "It is about how we have a responsibility to stand together and lead the Western democracies, protect our civilization and stand together for freedom."

Read the entire article here. This is a genuis bit of political theatre and substance on Fred's part. Making the visual tie in with Reagan's closest ally is powerful theatre. As to the substance, as the few people who regularly follow this blog know, I could not agree more with the position Fred will espouse in his speech. The US is the child of Britain in terms of its laws, politics and economy. Thus, the US and the UK are the most natural of allies. And as the history of the last century has taught us, as we together go, so goes Western Civilization.

US Military Maximizing The Opportunity To Meet Allah

2007-06-19T03:26:00.000-04:00

The combined arms combat power of the U.S. military, wielded by the most well trained soldiers on this earth, is a wonderful and terrifying thing indeed. And with it, the dynamic in Iraq has just changed 180 degrees. General Petraeus has wasted no time now that all promised troops for the surge are on the ground in Iraq. The mission has now changed from emphasizing the creation of static outposts in Baghdad to large scale offensive operations aimed primarilly at al Qaeda. And as previously predicted, the first big offensive is going into Diyala Province, now the home base of al Qaeda in Iraq. This today from the AP:

About 10,000 U.S. soldiers launched an offensive against al-Qaida in Iraq northeast of Baghdad early Tuesday, killing at least 22 insurgents, the U.S. military said.

The raids, dubbed "Operation Arrowhead Ripper," took place in Baqouba, the capital of Diyala province, and involved air assaults under the cover of darkness, the military said in a statement. The operation was still in its opening stages, it said.

On Monday, military officials said U.S. and Iraqi forces had launched attacks on Baghdad's northern and southern flanks to clear out Sunni insurgents, al-Qaida fighters and Shiite militiamen who had fled the capital and Anbar during a four-month-old security operation.

A top U.S. military official said American forces were taking advantage of the arrival of the final brigade of 30,000 additional U.S. troops to open concerted attacks.

"We are going into the areas that have been sanctuaries of al-Qaida and other extremists to take them on and weed them out, to help get the areas clear and to really take on al-Qaida," the senior official said on condition of anonymity because he was not authorized to speak about the operation. "Those are areas in the belts around Baghdad, some parts in Anbar province and specifically Diyala province."

Al-Qaida has proven to be an extremely agile foe for U.S. and Iraqi forces, as shown by its ability to transfer major operations to Baqouba from Anbar province, the sprawling desert region in western Iraq. There is no guarantee that driving the organization out of current sanctuaries would prevent it from migrating to other regions to continue the fight.

The death toll in sectarian violence Monday skyrocketed after a brief period of relative peace. At least 111 people were killed or found dead nationwide, with 33 bodies of torture victims showing up in Baghdad alone.

Well to the south, Iraqi officials reported as many as 36 people were killed in fierce overnight fighting that began as British and Iraqi forces conducted house-to-house searches in Amarah, a stronghold of the Shiite Mahdi Army militia.

The U.S. military issued a statement that said at least 20 people were killed in clashes with coalition forces. A spokeswoman for Britain's Ministry of Defense said British soldiers played a supporting role to Iraqi security forces during the raid and fighting in Amarah. She spoke on condition of anonymity, which is ministry policy.

The operations on Baghdad's flanks were opened by the U.S. 3rd Infantry Division, which has taken over dangerous al-Qaida-infested regions to the south. The division began its drive into the Salman Pak and Arab Jabour districts on the city's southeastern fringe over the weekend.

At the time, ground forces commander Lt. Gen. Raymond Odierno said U.S. troops were heading into those areas in force for the first time in three years.

The military said in a statement Monday that fighter jets dropped "four precision-guided bombs" in support of 1,200 U.S. soldiers from the 3rd Infantry as they started moving on al-Qaida targets.

Military officials said Multi-National Division-North forces likewise were increasing pressure on al-Qaida sanctuaries northeast of the capital in the verdant orange and palm groves of Diyala, now one of the most fiercely contested regions in Iraq.

The province is a tangle of Shiite and Sunni villages that has played into the hands of al-Qaida and allied militants who have melted into the tense region and sought to inflame existing sectarian troubles.

Al-Qaida has conducted public executions in the Baqouba main square and otherwise sought to enforce an extreme Taliban-style Islamic code. The terror organization's actions in the province have caused some Sunni militants, al-Qaida's natural allies, to turn their guns on the group with American assistance and blessing. Some militant Shiites are likewise joining government forces in a bid to oust the foreign fighters and Muslim extremists.

Multi-National Division-Baghdad, which has run the security operation in the capital since it began on Feb. 14, has increased pressure on districts to the northwest of the city to cut supply and reinforcement lines from Ramadi, the capital of Anbar province, to the Baqouba region.

"We're focusing up in the northwest to apply force in an area that's been important to al-Qaida and its associates as they move between Ramadi and Baqouba. That work, together with the developing efforts to provide local security through the (Sunni) tribes in Abu Ghraib and Amariyah, is putting pressure on al-Qaida," said Lt. Col. Scott Bleichwehl, division spokesman.

Some Sunni tribes, which had fought with or offered sanctuary to al- Qaida in Anbar province, have risen up against the group and are now receiving arms and training from U.S. forces. American military officials are trying to spread that success to al-Qaida areas now under attack.

Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki, a Shiite, told visiting Defense Secretary Robert Gates last week that the United States should stop arming Sunnis who may have been part of the insurgency, according to officials in his office. The officials spoke on condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to release the information. Al-Maliki repeated that position in a television interview in Baghdad on Monday. . . .

Read the entire story here. Just as a side note, while one cannot blame the AP author for speculating that driving al Qaeda out of Diyala will mean they just turn up somewhere else, it also shows that they lack a bit in the hold on reality department. Al Qaeda will never be able to take root and create the kind of destruction it has to this point without having support or acuquiesence of the local populace. The reason that al Qaeda has headed in large numbers to Diyala is because that support is no longer avaialbe to them in much of Baghdad and Anbar, but it was present in parts of Diyala. This is not whack-a-mole. It is much more akin to methodically cornering an animal, taking away their freedom of movement piece by piece. The available dens for al Qaeda are drying up save for the last - the one where you meet Allah and inquire whether all that stuff about 72 nubile virgins is real or not.

More On Bias At The BBC

2007-06-19T02:33:00.000-04:00

As noted in yesterday's post on bias of the Beeb, the BBC's internal report on its bias is in fact posted today. The report, "From Seesaw to Wagon Wheel: Safeguarding Impartiality in the 21st Century," is posted in pdf sections at the BBC Trust Website here. I've downloaded it but have only had time to skim it. There is a good piece from today's Telegraph - from people who have read the report - likening it to an alcoholic's first realization that he may in fact have a wee bit of a drinking problem:

When it comes to accusations of Left-liberal bias, the BBC is a bit like an alcoholic. People have been sniggering about his drinking for years; he pretends not to notice. There have been complaints; he brushes them aside. Throwing up at that wedding reception? Someone spiked the punch.

Propositioning the boss's wife? That was a joke. But, deep down, the drunk knows he has a problem. More to the point, he knows that everyone else knows. So, nervously, he's prepared to admit that he might be a little too fond of the sauce.

Yesterday, the BBC Trust published From Seesaw to Wagon Wheel, an 81-page report with the subtitle "Safeguarding Impartiality in the 21st century".

That's a bit like the late Boris Yeltsin talking about safeguarding his sobriety. It is, however, the first time that the corporation has attempted to address the question, so we should read the report carefully.

The first reaction is to sigh with relief. The report acknowledges that "mainstream opinion" was wrong to attack monetarism, to belittle Euro-sceptics as small-minded and blinkered, and to assume that multi-culturalism would solve the problems of immigration.

Justin Webb, the BBC's Washington correspondent, is quoted as saying that "in the tone of what we say about America, we have a tendency to scorn and deride." (Would "we" in this instance mean Matt Frei, I wonder?) Roger Mosey, former head of BBC television news, says he has "some sympathies with what Janet Daley says generally about a liberal/pinko agenda".

Stephen Whittle, a former controller of the BBC's editorial policy, says that its journalists work within a straitjacket of unchallenged liberal assumptions.

You're telling me. A few years ago, I wrote a column called "Beebwatch" for this newspaper. That involved listening to hours of BBC output every day. It was a maddening experience. I simply could not believe the ease with which representatives of Lefty pressure groups commandeered segments of Woman's Hour and Today, their soprano nagging accompanied by pizzicato clucks from the friendly interviewer.

I was outraged and, like many outraged people, became a raging bore on the subject. After the column finished, I worried whether I might have exaggerated the problem.
But then I met Robin Aitken, a BBC reporter for 25 years, who reckons that during his time on Today, The Money Programme and Breakfast News he couldn't have formed a cricket team from Tory sympathisers at the BBC.

His book Can We Trust the BBC? argues that the Left-liberal culture at White City is basically intact. Aitken, admittedly, is a Conservative, so perhaps he would say that. But Rod Liddle, former editor of Today, definitely isn't, and in The Spectator last month he listed the groups that the BBC thinks it's OK to be horrible about: evangelical Christians, the Countryside Alliance, multi-national corporations, supporters of Israel.

Ah yes, Israel. One of the few BBC journalists criticised in yesterday's report was Barbara Plett, who burst into tears when Yasser Arafat was airlifted out of his compound and then boasted about it in an article. She was caught red-handed, in other words; the incident became famous and so the report produces her as a burnt offering.

In contrast, we are told only that "a BBC News presenter" was unwise to write an article in the Daily Mirror entitled "Why the World Needs Hillary". That means you, Gavin Esler, though I had to use Google to find out.

Which brings us to the real reason this document has appeared. Google, YouTube, Al-Jazeera, Fox News: all these outlets provide competition for the BBC. The report acknowledges as much, referring in typical Beeb style to the "alternative vision" of Al-Jazeera, but to Fox's "avowedly opinionated" stance. Suddenly, the BBC finds that its reputation for impartiality has become its unique selling point, the only thing standing between it and privatisation.

Time to panic. For years, the corporation has ignored the little voice in its head that says impartiality went out of the window with Margaret Thatcher; it could afford to, because its critics had no redress and few media outlets.

But now anyone can mock the BBC on a blog or YouTube, or watch an excellent internet channel, 18 Doughty Street, founded by centre-Right entrepreneurs: the BBC report calls it "a harbinger of partisan television", but the truth is that, because it operates outside an ideological straitjacket, it is less partisan than, say, Radio 4.

This report is a step in the right direction. But, as anyone who has ever dealt with an alcoholic will confirm, it is best not to get your hopes up. Nothing will happen without a desire to change; and I don't think Auntie is ready to come off the sauce.

Read the entire story here. Actually this is not the first attempt to address the problem. There is the Balen Report on anti-Israeli, pro-Arab bias that the BBC was allowed to unconscionably spend 200,000 pounds in taxpayer funds in a successful effort to suppress the contents in the face of the British equivalent of a Freedom of Information Act challenge. That rather outrageous act is still in the courts as we speak, but there seems no mention of it in this BBC Report made public. That alone suggests that the Telegraph may be right, that the Beeb may know it has a drinking problem, but is not yet ready to admit how destructive it is, and not yet ready to fix it.

Brits & Iraqis Target Sadr & His Iranian Smuggling Operation

2007-06-18T07:30:00.000-04:00

Good news coming out of the British sector in Iraq today. This from the Telegraph:

Up to 36 people were killed in southern Iraq today as British forces conducted house to house searches aimed at weeding out Shia militants smuggling weapons from Iran.

Fierce fighting broke out in the towns of Amarah and Majar al-Kabir, 200 miles south-east of Baghdad, as Iraqi special forces backed by the British moved in on the smugglers.

. . . Iraqi police said the Mehdi Army of radical Shia cleric Moqtada al-Sadr was involved in the clashes, which took place in the Maysan province bordering Iran and lasted for about two hours before dawn. A Mehdi Army official said 17 of its members had been killed and 45 wounded.

America and Britain have frequently accused Shia Iran of fomenting violence in Iraq by supplying weapons and support to hardline Shia groups in the country.

Only last month coalition forces claimed to have intercepted plastic explosives said to have been supplied by agents of Iran's Revolutionary Guards.

Today’s raids took place in the neighbourhoods of al-Mulameen, Um Ghurba and al-Qatta'a, in eastern Amarah, as well as in the Mijar area, about 20 miles west of the city.

British military spokesman Major David Gell said: "We have not yet got the full details, but certainly it was an Iraqi Special Operations Forces operation which had been authorised by the government of Iraq last night and multinational forces were supporting."

Elsewhere today, two people were killed in clashes which erupted between Iraqi police and Mehdi Army fighters in the southern town of Nasiriyah. Local tribesman sided with Iraqi police to try to oust the militiamen from their town, Iraqi officials claimed.

Read the entire story here. The last sentence of this article is particularly intriguing for its nascent parallels to the Anbar Awakening Council. It is not clear from this article whether Sadr can be directly tied to the activities of the people who were targeted. And his Iranian connections need to be made well known.

Tactics of Agenda Journalism

2007-06-18T06:40:00.000-04:00

One aspect of agenda journalism is the tactic of framing an issue. This is, in essence, putting facts into some sort of coherent story driven towards a desired, but not necessarilly intellectually honest, point. The website EU Referendum does an exceptional job of deconstructing the art of framing in agenda journalism. See here.

Is The Hamas Coup A Plus Or Minus?

2007-06-18T06:10:00.000-04:00

This is musing and speculation on some of the ramifications of the Hamas coup in Gaza. I solicit your thoughts.

1. Hamas is no longer the legitimate government of the Palestinian people, Abbas having dissolved the government and appointed a new Prime Minister under emergency conditions. But, Hamas now, for the first time, has full responsibility for all aspects of governing the Palestinians in Gaza. Western aid will immediately flow to the West Bank and the new Abbas government but Gaza will see little if any of that. I cannot see Hamas, wholly surrounded by an unfriendly Egyptian government and a mortal enemy in Israel, being able to do much for the residents of Gaza - beyond imposing security and Sharia law.

2. Hamas is in a position of extreme weakness. Gaza’s water and electricity is controlled by Israel. Even with all the economic support in the world from Iran, no water and no electricity in a small plot of land with over 1,500,000 people is a disaster but a flick of some switches away. The next rocket coming across the border could send Gaza’s living conditions into the tank. Israel need not invade Gaza to hold life and death control over the society and to make any offensives by Hamas untenable.

3. While a majority of people in Gaza voted for Hamas, does that mean that they look forward to the mini-caliphate that they now find themselves under? Hamas ran on two prongs – one, providing services to Palestinians compliments of foreign funding, and two, not being as corrupt as Fatah. They did not run a campaign about imposing Sharia law of which I am aware. And how will they treat the concept of democracy in Gaza now that they have power? Palestinians in Gaza subject to decades of secular rule have just had it come to an end. It will be interesting to see how the populace takes to this in the long term, particularly if the West Bank Palestinians begin to thrive in a freer secular environment.

On a related note, there are about a thousand alleged Fatah supporters camped at the border crossing with Israel who are seeking to go to the West Bank. "Israel’s deputy defense minister, Ephraim Sneh, told Israel Radio that those whose lives were deemed in danger would be taken out through Israel. But he added, about the others, "No one knows for sure who these people are. We can assume they are people who don’t want to be in Gaza. Pretty soon there will be 1.5 million people who don’t want to be in Gaza."

4. Hamas by itself will not get the aid dollars they need to stay afloat. This will seriously strain the already troubled economy Hamas’s major patron, Iran. And how long will Iran support Hamas if Hamas does not take an active role in attacking Israel?

5. Abbas, though no friend of Israel, has, to his credit, long been a vocal opponent of the second intifada but lacked the strength necessary to challenge Hamas and the more radical elements. Now, with control over Palestinians in the West Bank and a much stronger security posture compliments of the IDF, Abbas may actually have a chance to develop a true Palestinian alternative with a viable economy. The flip side is that Iran, Hamas, Syria and possibly others will be intent on doing all they can to prevent this from happening. Expect the next round of suicide bombings in Ramallah.

6. If there is a real and lasting split between the Hamas contingent and Palestinians interested in developing an economy and a life, this would be a great disaster for many of the surrounding countries who have long used their influence and money to grossly manipulate the Palestinians for half a century. Indeed, "Abbas is already under pressure from some Arab governments, in particular the Saudis, who mediated the national-unity government at Mecca, to take Hamas at its word and try to recreate a shared government. In a speech on Friday to an emergency meeting of the Arab League, Foreign Minister Saud al-Faisal of Saudi Arabia said, "The Palestinians have come close to putting by themselves the last nail in the coffin of the Palestinian cause." To the extent that the "Palestinian cause" is the one defined by the Muslim Brotherhood and the salafists of Saudi Arabia – to support suicide bombers, to keep the Palestinians in poverty, to claim Israel’s treatment of the Palestinians as the cause of all misery in the Middle East, etc., then one can only hope that Faisal is accurate.

Feel free to chip in with your thoughts. All in all, in the world of unintended consequences, the Hamas coup has the potential of being a very positive event for Israel and West Bank Palestinians and a real problem for Hamas and Iran.

Paul Potts Winning Performance

2007-06-18T02:46:00.000-04:00

As noted in the post below, opera singer and former cell phone salesman Paul Potts has won the Britains Got Talent Show. Here is his winning performance.

And here is the final vote tally (its more then a bit like watching the Blair Witch Project) and his declaration as winner.

Look for his first CD out in the next few weeks.

General Petraeus On Iraq - & A Response to Harry Reid

2007-06-18T02:15:00.000-04:00

Credit Fox News with interviewing General Petraeus and giving him a chance to defend himself and all else about the surge against "Give 'Em Surrender" Harry Reid's claims that the surge is already a failure, that the war is lost, that Petraeus cannot be trusted to tell the truth, and that Petraeus is incompetent and out of touch with reality:

The following is a partial transcript of the June 17, 2007, edition of "FOX News Sunday With Chris Wallace":

"FOX NEWS SUNDAY" HOST CHRIS WALLACE: Joining us now, the top U.S. commander in Iraq, General David Petraeus.

General, let's start with the latest news. It was announced yesterday that U.S. forces found those two military I.D. cards of the missing American soldiers. Do you have any new leads on where they are?

PETRAEUS: Chris, we are evaluating the materials that we found in the house with those cards. I would not characterize any of those, however, as particularly hot leads.

We continue the effort in that particular area and in some other areas in Iraq, and we will not give that up.

WALLACE: This week you finally got your full complement of forces in Iraq. How is the surge working so far? And to some degree, do you feel as if the operation is only now beginning?

PETRAEUS: We actually do. In fact, a lot of what we have done to this point has been so-called shaping operations for what we have just recently launched in the last 48 hours and some additional operations that we'll launch over the next 48 or so hours.

That's not to say that we have not used those forces as they have come in, but we just recently got the fifth and final Army surge brigade, the Marine Expeditionary Unit, and our combat aviation brigade, which add considerable combat power.

And they are enabling us now to launch operations into sanctuaries, areas in which we have had very little coalition force presence other than raids in recent years.

These are areas where Al Qaeda has established car bomb factories and other bases from which they have issued forth and then moved into Baghdad to attack targets, often indiscriminately.

WALLACE: But how is the surge working so far? General Odierno, your number two, said this weekend that he believes that you have control over only 40 percent of Baghdad. Is that accurate?

And how do you feel it's going in terms of clearing out and securing Baghdad and Anbar province?

PETRAEUS: Well, I think, Chris, as I mentioned to the press yesterday, we're ahead of where we thought, I thought, we would be at this point in time, and then we are behind where we might have been in some other areas.

Anbar province is an area that, as you'll recall, was assessed to be lost less than a year or so ago by the military intelligence folks that were in Anbar province.

There's been a stunning reversal out there as tribes have said that whoever opposes Al Qaeda is with us, "We want to fight Al Qaeda. Will you help us, coalition forces?" And we have, indeed, done that.

And then they have been tied into the ministries of interior and defense so there's a linkage to the Iraqi government.

In Baghdad, there are certainly some neighborhoods — as General Odierno said it yesterday, there's about 30 percent of the neighborhoods about which we have real concern. These are the areas of the fault lines between Sunni and Shia.

We are focusing on them quite intently, and the additional forces will enable us to conduct additional operations in those areas.

Outside of Baghdad, the Baghdad belts, as they're called, south and north of the city, are areas into which we are now going in much greater force, again, areas in which Al Qaeda has had some sanctuary in the past.

And then in Diyala province, an area to which some of the Al Qaeda fighters have moved as they have been pushed out of Anbar and out of some of the Baghdad neighborhoods, is an area that requires considerable additional attention over the coming weeks, and it will get that as well.

WALLACE: General, the Pentagon issued its quarterly report this week, and it indicated that there has been no measurable progress so far. Let's take a look.

The Pentagon said the total number of weekly attacks on Iraqi civilians, Iraqi forces and U.S. forces actually went up from the last month before the surge to the first three months of the surge.

And the Pentagon report concluded the aggregate level of violence in Iraq remained relatively unchanged during this reporting period.

General, why shouldn't we back home view that as disappointing?

PETRAEUS: Well, the aggregate level is about the same. We actually have borne the brunt of much more of that, as have Iraqi security forces, and civilians a good bit less.

In fact, one of the metrics that we track, which is sectarian murders and executions in Baghdad, went down — by months, it was down to about a third — by the end of April, it was down to about a third of where it was back in January.

It did come back up as we announced in the month of May a little less than half. That is trending back down again.

The fact is that as we go on the offensive, the enemy is going to respond. That is what has happened. Car bombs have been coming steadily down. And as I mentioned, sectarian executions in Baghdad in particular have come down.

So again, certainly it is a mix, and that is what I've tried to convey with my assessment, that we're ahead in some areas and we need to do some serious work in others.

WALLACE: Senate Majority Leader Reid this week questioned your credibility after you gave an interview in which you said you saw, quote, "astonishing signs of normalcy in Baghdad such as soccer games and open markets." And here's how Senator Reid responded. Take a look.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

SEN. HARRY REID, D-NEV.: We're now back up to 1,000 attacks a day in Iraq. And for someone, whether it's General Petraeus or anyone else, to say things are great in Baghdad isn't in touch with what's going on in Baghdad, even though he's there and I'm not.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

WALLACE: General, the argument seems to be that we're getting spin out of Baghdad and not the straight talk as to what the situation is there. Your response.

PETRAEUS: Chris, I've tried hard to be forthright all along in this endeavor. My testimony before the Senate in January, again in April, when I did a VTC in the middle of that as well, with every congressional delegation and with the press, I have tried not to pull punches.

I base my assessments, what I offer, on personal observation, walking around Baghdad, driving around it, flying around it. The fact is that there are signs of normalcy throughout a good bit of Baghdad. There are tens of thousands of kids that will be out there tonight playing soccer.

In fact, we flew around the city on the way over here today, since they'd lifted the curfew, just to see how things were going. There's traffic all over the streets. The markets are reopened and so forth.

That is not to say — and in fact, in that interview I followed and also warned, for example, that the mosque bombing could spark new violence. I have tried hard to present both the good and the bad.

But I will not shrink from announcing that there is some good out there, if you will, that there is some normalcy, nor will I shrink from acknowledging that there is plenty of bad out there, as I did with the fact that we have to really focus on 30 percent of those Baghdad neighborhoods.

And there's certainly not much normalcy in some of those neighborhoods which are under the threat of both Al Qaeda and then extremist militias.

WALLACE: So how do you feel when you hear a senator here in Washington say that you're out of touch with what's going on in Baghdad?

PETRAEUS: Chris, as I said, I am just going to present what I see. I am going to provide a forthright assessment. That's the same thing that we'll do in September.

And frankly, we've got more than enough work out here to keep us occupied and to keep us focused and busy.

WALLACE: Let's talk about who's responsible for the situation in Iraq. In recent weeks, the president has been emphasizing the role of Al Qaeda. Let's watch.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH: The primary reason for the high level of violence is this. Al Qaeda has ratcheted up its campaign of high profile attacks.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

WALLACE: But again, the Pentagon quarterly report tells a very different story, and let's put that up. It says, "Much of the violence is attributable to sectarian friction."

And as you pointed out, there was a substantial jump in sectarian violence in May. Isn't the Sunni-Shiite conflict much more responsible for the violence in Iraq these days than Al Qaeda, sir?

PETRAEUS: I'm not so sure about that, Chris. In fact, Al Qaeda is the Sunni violence. Al Qaeda is the face of what is happening on the extremist Sunni side.

They are carrying out the bulk of the sensational attacks, the suicide car bomb attacks, suicide vest attacks and so forth.

This is, I think, all of the individuals in the intelligence community — General McCrystal, the head of our Joint Special Operations Command — all of us feel that the central front of Al Qaeda's terror war is focused on Iraq.

So I think it is appropriate to emphasize the role that Al Qaeda Iraq is playing and the role that they play in provoking and giving excuses to the extremist militias of the other side, of the Shia side, as a justification for what they are doing, ostensibly, to protect the Shia people, but then in their own turn carrying out violence of their own.

There is no question but that there is sectarian violence between, again, Al Qaeda, certainly between some other Sunni insurgent groups and these extremist militias.

And that is, in fact, what we are trying to try to break the cycle of, the cycle of violence that can really damage a neighborhood, the cycle of violence that, in fact, tore the fabric of society in Iraq and particularly in Baghdad, and especially in the mixed neighborhoods, during the latter part of 2006 and into the early part of this year, with really enormous damage as a result.

WALLACE: General, you talked briefly before about the fact that you're trying to split off some of the Sunni insurgents from Al Qaeda, especially out in Anbar province, and in fact, you've even gone to the lengths of arming some of the Sunni insurgents to fight Al Qaeda.

How do you know — or do you worry that they are going to end up using those weapons to either attack U.S. forces or to fight their civil war against the Shiites?

And how do you respond — we understand that aides to Prime Minister Maliki objected strongly about arming Sunni insurgents to Defense Secretary Gates yesterday, so how do you respond to that concern?

PETRAEUS: Well, those are legitimate concerns, and we have the same concerns. We have a good discussion going with the government of Iraq.

As I mentioned, the process really is to identify these individuals, try to vet them as best we can. By the way, we do biometric data on all of them. We link that to serial numbers of weapons and so forth.

And then what you want to do is you want to get them linked into legitimate government of Iraq institutions, starting out perhaps as what are called police support units; then, as they prove themselves, getting a ticket to the police academy so they can become full-fledged police, or volunteering for the Iraqi army.

The fact is that over time in any of these conflicts, individuals at some point have had to end up sitting across the table from those who at best tacitly were aware of what was going on against their adversary, and that we perhaps aided and abetted it.

Interestingly, we have a British three-star general — my deputy is the head of our particular effort here, the engagement and reconciliation cell that we have established in part because they've had some pretty tough experience in this regard themselves, having sat down at tables in northern Ireland and other places with individuals who, say, 10 years earlier were swinging pipes against their lads.

That's been instructive for us. We think that it has been carried out with sufficient safeguards in Anbar province. It has certainly completely changed the dynamics of Anbar province.

And now, by the way, you see a bottom-up political activity that is also ongoing, where city councils, neighborhood councils and so forth are getting elected and are gradually tying into the provincial council which, of course, ties into the government of Iraq.

We're even seeing that in some of the neighborhoods in Baghdad where neighborhood councils had ceased to exist because of the security threat, and they are now coming back to life as well.

Again, those are legitimate concerns. They are legitimate discussions with Prime Minister Maliki. He supported strongly what was going on in Anbar province.

It gets much tougher when you get into the mixed neighborhoods near Baghdad in the Baghdad belts, and we're all working together to try to ensure that there are safeguards so that we're not arming individuals who eventually take up arms against the government.

WALLACE: General, we have to take a quick break here.

But when we come back, the September deadline for a progress report on the surge. What can we expect? And can we rely on the Iraqi government to hold up its end of the bargain? Back with General Petraeus in a moment.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

WALLACE: And we're back now with more of our exclusive interview with General David Petraeus, the top U.S. commander in Iraq.

General, let's turn to the political situation in Baghdad. Back when you were being confirmed by the U.S. Senate, you said the point of the surge was not to win a military victory, but to give the Iraqi politicians time to reach out in national reconciliation. Let's take a look.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

PETRAEUS: The objective will be to achieve sufficient security to provide the space and time for the Iraqi government to come to grips with the tough decisions its members must make to enable Iraq to move forward.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

WALLACE: Now, that was five months ago, and since then the Iraqi politicians have failed repeatedly to meet benchmarks for political reform.

Hasn't that part of your surge strategy, trying to give the Iraqi politicians some breathing space — hasn't that failed, sir?

PETRAEUS: Well, there certainly have not been real substantial achievements in that regard so far.

However, the oil framework law and also now the oil revenue law are pieces of legislation in which the Iraqi leaders are very much coming to grips right now.

In fact, we helped bring down from the Iraqi Kurdish region last night the top negotiator, and we're at the stage where supposedly there are two sentences that must be resolved.

So I think it's time to see now if these important laws can go forward, in addition to some of the other smaller achievements that they've had in terms of the higher electoral council, the budget and so forth.

WALLACE: We understand that Secretary of Defense Gates basically gave the Iraqis a September deadline. He said we really have to see some measurable political reform by September. True?

PETRAEUS: Actually, not quite so blunt. In fact, Secretary Gates had a very good session with Prime Minister Maliki.

In fact, he started off by complimenting the prime minister and the other leaders with whom he met on their response to the Samarra mosque bombing. They were united in that effort. They were decisive.

And we think their response in ordering rapid steps to be taken has, in fact, helped hold down the level of violence to well below what took place in the wake of the February '06 bombing.

And in fact, I should know that yesterday there was an agreement with UNESCO and the government of Iraq to rebuild that Samarra mosque.

WALLACE: I mean, I understand that, sir, but you know, we here back in the states look and we see the oil law has not been passed, the constitution has not been amended, they have not held provincial elections, they have not brought Sunnis back into the government.

I mean, really, the glass is not half full.

PETRAEUS: Chris, I don't think anybody's satisfied with where they are, and the Iraqi officials are foremost among them. They're grappling with really basic issues here. We're talking about issues that will set the course for this country for years and decades to come.

Our own experience as a country, in fact, shows how difficult it is to resolve some of these very difficult issues.

They recognize fully that our ability to help them in the future depends on the progress that they show over the course of the next few months. They're keenly aware of that.

And I think they are going to do everything they can to try to inject hope into places like Washington and elsewhere to show that the Baghdad clock can indeed move a bit faster so that you can put a bit of time back on the Washington clock.

WALLACE: Well, let's start talking about the Washington clock. Less than a month ago, President Bush was talking up the importance of this progress report that you're going to be delivering to him and to Congress in September.

Let's put it up on the screen. Mr. Bush said, "I see it as an important moment because David Petraeus says that's when he'll have a pretty good assessment as to what the effects of the surge has been."

But now, sir, a number of top administration officials are downplaying the September report. Are you backing away from how much you're going to be able to say in September?

PETRAEUS: I am not. In fact, Ambassador Ryan Crocker, my diplomatic wing man here, and I will go back in September and we'll provide a snapshot of where we are at that time, and it will be a forthright assessment of what we've achieved and what we haven't achieved.

I'll talk, obviously, about the security aspects of the situation and he will address the political and economic ones.

We also owe it, we think, to the decision-makers at one end of Pennsylvania Avenue and those who provide advice and consent and resources for the policies at the other end some sense of the implications of the various courses of action that might be under discussion at that point in time.

There are some very serious centrifugal forces here in Iraq, and I think we all need to have very clear eyes about what can happen, what the implications of various options are and, again, just to assess those correctly.

WALLACE: Well, let's explore that. General Odierno, your number two, said this weekend that the Washington politicians need to give the surge more time.

Do you think by September you're going to have a reasonable and a realistic sense of how the surge has gone, whether, in fact, it is working or not working?

PETRAEUS: I think we will have a sense of that, Chris. I've said that all along. I started saying that back in January. I think we'll have had by then our forces in the mix for a good several months.

We'll have some sense of how we have done in these various sanctuaries that Al Qaida has had in the past that we are now entering for the first time in which we will endeavor to stay.

We'll have a sense of how we've done in some of these tough neighborhoods in Baghdad and how we are doing, also, all of this in partnership with our Iraqi security force counterparts in Diyala province and in some of the other areas of the country.

WALLACE: So you think by then that the policymakers in Washington — the president, his administration, members of Congress — can make a reasoned decision as to whether or not to continue with this strategy?

PETRAEUS: Well, what I've said, Chris, is that at that point in time, the ambassador and I think we can provide a reasonable snapshot of the situation at that time and how things have gone in the surge, both in the security and then in the political and economic arenas.

And it is, obviously, up to the policymakers and to the legislators to determine the course ahead.

WALLACE: Do you feel a sense of pressure? Do you feel that September deadline pressing in on you? And does it affect the decisions you make?

PETRAEUS: Chris, we've got a fairly heavy rucksack we're carrying out here, but thank goodness for all the tremendous troopers out here who, in truth, are really carrying the heavy burden of this.

We've got a lot of great help in taking this forward and we also have some wonderful partners on the Iraqi side.

But we do see that time staring us squarely in our eyes, and we're focused on it, and we're going to try to do all that we can with what we have between now and then.

WALLACE: There are reports that you and General Odierno would like the surge to continue until at least early 2008, that if it's going to work, it needs to continue into early next year. Is that true?

PETRAEUS: We've got a number of different options that we have looked at, Chris, and it really is premature at this point in time to try to prejudge that.

Again, I would suspect that late in the summer, early September, that we will provide some recommendations on the way ahead up our chain of command as well.

WALLACE: But you surely don't think the job would be done by the surge by September, do you, sir?

PETRAEUS: I do not, no. I think that we have a lot of heavy lifting to do. The damage done by the sectarian violence in the fall and winter of 2006 and early 2007, as I mentioned, was substantial. And this is a tough effort.

WALLACE: So then it would be fair to assume that the enhanced troop levels would continue for some months after that and into 2008.

PETRAEUS: Chris, again, premature right now. A number of options out there. And not about to announce what we might do here today, I'm afraid.

WALLACE: Well, you can't blame me for trying, sir. There are also some...

(LAUGHTER)

WALLACE: There are also some reports that you believe that we're going to need at least 130,000 troops in Iraq through the end of 2008. Is that true?

PETRAEUS: Chris, there's some wonderful mind-readers out there. I'd love to know who they are. But they seem to know what's in my mind better than I do.

Again, our first focus is on doing all that we can as we've truly now launched the surge and we have some reasonable expectations for what we can achieve.

Beyond that, we will obviously provide that assessment in September along with, I would suspect, at that time some recommendations on the way ahead. But you're looking out well beyond that, and we're not prepared to address that yet.

WALLACE: Well, let me look out even further than that, General. Some administration officials have talked about needing to make — and basically squaring with the American public, saying, "Look, this is going to be a long-term commitment," and even comparing it to the situation in South Korea, where we have had thousands of troops for decades.

Do you see this to stabilize and achieve what we want in Iraq as that kind of a long-term commitment?

PETRAEUS: Well, I think the real question, Chris, is at what level. I think just about everybody out there recognizes that a situation like this, with the many, many challenges that Iraq is contending with, is not one that's going to be resolved in a year or even two years.

In fact, typically, I think historically, counterinsurgency operations have gone at least nine or 10 years.

The question is, of course, at what level, how much will we have to continue to contribute during that time, how much more can the Iraqi security forces and the Iraqi government pick up as this goes along. And I think that's the real question. And I'm not sure what the right analogy is, whether it's Korea or what have you.

I think all that the folks in Washington were trying to indicate by that was that there is some possibility of some form of long-term security arrangement over time.

And I think in general that that's probably a fairly realistic assessment, assuming that the Iraqi government, in fact, does want that to continue. And of course, it is very much up to them, and their sovereignty is paramount in all of this.

WALLACE: General, we have less than a minute left. Let's get to the bottom line here. Do you feel that we can still win in Iraq, that we can leave behind a stable, democratic government?

PETRAEUS: Chris, if I didn't believe that, I wouldn't be here. I wouldn't be leading the finest of young American men and women who are putting their lives on the line every day.

In the last two weeks, I've gone to memorial ceremonies, one of which was for four soldiers lost in one unit, another for six soldiers lost in one unit. And I can tell you that as you sit there at that, you obviously reflect on that particular question.

And again, I think that there is good prospect for progress in the months ahead that hopefully can be matched by progress in the political and economic arenas here in Iraq and, again, can give us hope for the way ahead.

WALLACE: General, I can't think of a better way to end this conversation. We want to thank you so much for giving us a progress report today. And please stay safe, sir.

PETRAEUS: Thanks, Chris. Good to be with you.

Read the entire story here.

The BBC Biased? Could It Be?

2007-06-17T23:47:00.000-04:00

I grew up loving the BBC from across the pond. It always had the best programming as far as I was concerned. Thus it came as an utter shock to me when, later in life, it became apparent just how insidiously and dangerously biased the BBC's news division was - and had been for generations. It has become particulalry toxic to the functioning of a Western democracy since 9-11. I am reminded of the period prior to WWII when the BBC carried water for the world's most infamous appeaser, Neville Chamberlin, while refusing to give any coverage to Winston Churchill. Churchill would later label the BBC a "communist organization."

To be fair, the BBC does still on occaision come up with some amazing work. Undercover Mosque, by BBC 4, was as first rate and important a piece of investigative journalism as one will ever find. And the bulk of the BBC's work, when not on topics that lend themselves to left wing, avant garde causes or anti-americanism, is even handed and quite good. In what remains, which is a sizable portion of their reporting, there is a clear, if not at times over the top, anti-war, anti-american, anti-conservative bias and an embrace of suicidal multiculturalism - particularly a pro-Muslim bent - that pervades their work. Indeed, it sometimes pervades its work to a high degree of comedy. The BBC certainly seems to have a preference for political parties in its own country. And how many news rooms do you know contain a picture of Bush in Hitlerian garb? The Beeb's bias is both active and passive - it is evident in what the BBC chooses to report, and also in what the BBC chooses to simply omit from its coverage. And over the past few years, it has spent hundreds of thousands of taxpayer pounds to in a court battle to keep the "Balen Report" secret - an internal report on pro-arab, anti-semetic bias at the Beeb. The website Biased BBC does an excellent job of documenting BBC outrages, both active and passive on a daily basis.

The BBC has for years claimed the outrageous fiction that they are unbiased. Thus, it was good to hear today at least some small note of reality - that the BBC is at least acknowledging a portion of this bias in a report released but not yet up on the BBC website. The Times has the story:

There are some things you do not need an official report to tell you - that John Prescott thinks he is a babe magnet, that President Mugabe is not entirely in favour of white farmers and that Al-Qaeda takes a pretty dim view of the West. The report commissioned by the BBC into itself concluded with something equally blindingly obvious. It said that the organisation is institutionally biased and especially gullible to the blandishments of politically driven celebrities, such as Bono and Bob Geldof. Almost anyone in Britain could have told the BBC that for free, but maybe it’s better to have it in an official report.

All media organisations are biased and that applies especially to newspapers. But our bias is openly declared. If readers want different views they have no compulsion to pay and can go elsewhere. The BBC is in a different category; everyone has to pay for it and it is in the tricky position of being founded to be free from bias. It is meant to be a beacon of objective truth in a wildly polarised world. A tall order. In theory even rabid rightwingers and demented leftists can listen or watch (and increasingly read online) the BBC without discerning any tilt. But what emerges from the report is a picture of an organisation with a liberal, anti-American bias and an almost teenage fascination with fashionable causes. The report singles out the BBC’s overwhelming and uncritical backing for the campaign over Live Aid and now the Live Earth concerts on global warming.

That the BBC should investigate itself is perhaps admirable, but only if it acts on the conclusions. The likelihood is that it will lament its shortcomings, pledge to do something and carry on much as before. Changing its cosy culture will take more than a report; some who have worked there say it would require a small neutron bomb. The BBC is a self-perpetuating liberal arts club. Recruitment is the key. It needs to employ more nonconformist journalists whose paper of choice is not The Guardian.

Read the story here. And then there is this from the Telegraph:

The BBC has failed to promote proper debate on major political issues because of the inherent liberal culture of its staff, a report commissioned by the corporation has concluded.

The report claims that coverage of single-issue political causes, such as climate change and poverty, can be biased - and is particularly critical of Live 8 coverage, which it says amounted to endorsement.

It warns that celebrities must not be pandered to and allowed to hijack the BBC schedule.

After a year-long investigation the report, published today, maintains that the corporation’s coverage of day-to-day politics is fair and impartial.

That last statement is simply ridiculous and why I am incredibly cynical about this report doing anything but provide the BBC a whitewash. The BBC's day to day reporting is often its most objectionable. Just click on a few of the links I have included above to see for yourself. To continue:

. . . The report concludes BBC staff must be more willing to challenge their own beliefs.

It reads: “There is a tendency to 'group think’ with too many staff inhabiting a shared space and comfort zone.”

A staff impartiality seminar held last year is also documented in the report, at which executives admitted they would broadcast images of the Bible being thrown away but not the Koran, in case Muslims were offended.

During the seminar a senior BBC reporter criticised the corporation for being anti-American.

The report was jointly commissioned by BBC managers and the board of governors and will be published by the BBC Trust, which has since replaced the governors.
It has been approved by a committee headed by BBC trustee and former ITN editor-in-chief Richard Tait. Other members include BBC deputy director-general Mark Byford, head of BBC News Helen Boaden and creative director Alan Yentob.

Writing in The Observer yesterday, Mr Tait said that “the BBC cannot allow its output to be taken over by campaigning groups” and added: “At the BBC impartiality is and must remain non-negotiable because it is vital to safeguard the BBC’s independence.”

The report offers 12 new principles for the corporation to adopt to safeguard its impartiality.

These include: “Impartiality is no excuse for insipid programming. It allows room for fair-minded, evidence-based judgements by senior journalists and documentary-makers, and for controversial, passionate and polemical arguments by contributors and writers.”

A BBC spokeswoman said: “This report is about looking forward and how we are going to face the challenges of impartiality in the modern world.”

I apologize for being cynical, but the bias at the BBC news division is far too much for me to stomach, particularly since not only are its toxins infecting the UK, but it is also being pumped into the US. This internal BBC report seems more of a whitewash then anything else.

The BBC is, by law required to be objective in its reporting. The people of Britain are required by law to fund the BBC through a licensing fee on all television owners. Only half of the equation is being upheld at the moment.

There is no reason whatsoever for the BBC's news division to remain on the public tit, particularly when it is so clearly failing in its legal mandate. But even beyond that, there is no reason that the BBC news division should not compete in the marketplace as do nearly all other news divisions in the world outside of dictatorships and communist countries. The New York Times is watching its stock values plummet because of its one sided reporting. There is no reason the BBC should not enjoy the same opportunity.

Paul Potts Has Got Talent - And A Big Win In The Britain's Got Talent Show

2007-06-17T18:34:00.000-04:00

Paul Potts, the cell phone salesman Pavarotti from Wales, has won the Britain's Got Talent contest. I can think of no one on either side of the pond more deserving of a big break based on an incredible talent. I'll post the videos when they come out. In the meantime, you can see his first two powerful and moving performances here and here, and here are the comments from ITV on the finale and what Paul has won:

Grand Final - The Winner

It was as if the tension would never end - but finally, eventually, painfully... Dec announced Paul Potts as the Britain's Got Talent winner.

It was a moment where futures were made and dreams were dashed. But even though every one of the performers here has an outstanding talent, only one could scoop the big prize tonight.

Two million votes were cast by the British public. For the big winner, welshman Paul Potts, tonight starts a week of newspaper interviews, magazine features and TV appearances. Life won't be quite the same ever again.

As Ant and Dec congratulated the singer - or was that held him up - he told them - "I can't believe I've won it - I'm like jelly. Performing for the Quen means absolutely everything. Thank you for believing in me".

The man Simon Cowell described as "a shy and humble guy with a great talent" will now "be in the recording studio next week making his first album".

As well as the £100,000 prize cheque, the Britain's Got Talent winner recieves an invitation to perform at the Royal Variety Performance, by invitation of her Majesty the Queen.

The Royal Variety Perfromance will be shown on ITV1 on December 3rd 2007. We'll see Paul, our very deserving winner, taking their much deserved place in the spotlight then.

And here is his Paul's short biography from ITV that I had neglected to post earlier.

Paul first sang opera at the age of 28 for a karaoke competition– he dressed up as Pavarotti.

He went on to perform in Barrymore’s ‘My Kind Of Music’ (1999). The money he won from the show (£8000) along with his savings was spent on attending various training courses in Italy.

From his Italian opera class he was selected to sing in master class’ for Pavarotti and Katia Ricciarelli – who he says were very impressed. Paul reckons he’s spent £20,000 in total to get to where he is today.

Paul has performed in 4 semi professional operas in the UK and some concerts. His proudest performance was with the philimonic orchestra in a concert in front of 15, 000 people

After having appendicitis doctors discovered a benign tumour that was removed. 2 weeks after the operation he was back on stage.

A motorbike accident in 2003 which he broke his collar bone kept him away from performing and he got left out of the opera circles. Since his illness he has struggled with money and has never reached his potential in Opera and this is why he has chosen to enter Britain’s got talent.

Married for 4 years to his wife Julie (26) whom he met on a internet chat room. They have been together for 6 years in total

Paul has worked at the Carephone warehouse for 2 years, for 1 year as manager – before that he worked the night shift at Tesco’s shelf stacking / internet personal shopping.

The Carnival Of The Insanities Is Up

2007-06-17T07:07:00.000-04:00

Do visit Dr. Sanity's office for some much needed therapy.

A Witches Brew in the Middle East

2007-06-17T06:23:00.000-04:00

Harvard University Professor Niall Ferguson today keenly puts his arms around the vast witches brew of bloody conflict and competing interests in the Middle East, forecasting that we are likely on the precipice of another world conflict, if not Armagedon:

Divide and rule was an old maxim of Britain's Empire. In the Middle East today, there's certainly no shortage of division. But who is ruling as a result? Any lingering hopes of a two-state solution to the conflict between Israel and the Palestinians evaporated last week as the Islamist extremists of Hamas seized control of the Gaza Strip. President Mahmoud Abbas, the leader of the more secular Fatah party, now finds himself president of the West Bank only. The next Middle Eastern peace plan will have to be a three-state solution: Israel, Hamastan and Fatahland.

Did I say three? I meant four. Because no peace could last long if it didn't somehow end the threat to Israel posed by Hezbollahstan - the strip of Lebanon controlled by the Iranian-backed terrorists whom Israel failed to obliterate last summer.

Meanwhile, even as hooded Hamas gunmen and Fatah forces traded bullets in Gaza, and even as another anti-Syrian politician was blown to pieces by a car-bomb in Lebanon, Sunni militants in Iraq destroyed the twin minarets of the al-Askari shrine in Samarra, finishing a job they began last year, when they demolished the shrine's golden dome. Nothing could be better calculated to intensify the sectarian conflict that has been tearing the country apart for 16 months, pushing it another step closer to bloody partition.

And don't forget Kurdistan, the semi-autonomous republic in northern Iraq which is set to be the third state in Iraq's three-state (dis)solution. Or maybe not. In recent weeks the Turkish army has been massing troops on the Turkish-Iraqi border, threatening to launch raids against bases allegedly being operated by the Kurdistan Workers Party (PKK). Terrorism by the PKK has been a thorn in Ankara's side for more than 20 years. But this is also a renewed attempt by the secularists in the Turkish army to put pressure on the moderate Islamist government of Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan. Only the other day, the generals threatened to stage a coup if one of Erdogan's colleagues was elected president.

As I said, there's no shortage of division in the Middle East. But who gets to rule is less clear.

For some time I have been warning that the next great global conflict will begin in the Middle East, just as the two world wars had their origins in eastern Europe. The lethal combination of ethnic disintegration, economic volatility and an empire in decline (in this case, the United States) makes an upward spiral of violence hard to avoid. Add to that the demographic pressures due to high Muslim birth-rates, the money generated by vast deposits of oil and natural gas, and the risk that the most revolutionary power in the region will soon possess nuclear weapons, and you have a recipe for Armageddon.

What can the rest of the world do to defuse the Middle Eastern timebomb? According to that compulsive contrarian Edward Luttwak, a Senior Fellow at the Centre for Strategic and International Studies in Washington, the answer is: ignore it. In a recent article, Luttwak dismisses the entire region as "the middle of nowhere", arguing that overblown prophesies of doom are, after oil, the Middle East's biggest export.

Luttwak's argument is twofold. First, we exaggerate the importance of violence in the Middle East. As he puts it, "the dead from Jewish-Palestinian fighting since 1921 amount to fewer than 100,000". Iran is no more of a threat to the west than Saddam Hussein's Iraq was. "Most Middle Eastern populations," he writes, "can sustain excellent insurgencies but not modern military forces". And Iranian-sponsored terrorism is an overrated counter-threat to the possibility of American air strikes. Iran is in any case so ethnically divided that it will probably break up sooner or later.

At the same time, Luttwak insists, we exaggerate the economic importance of the Middle East. It is an under-achieving region where "almost nothing is created in science or the arts". It boasts the second-lowest adult literacy rate in the world (after sub-Saharan Africa). Excluding Israel, its per capita production of patents is even worse than Africa's. Practically the only thing the Middle East exports is oil, but global dependence on that is declining.

Hence, since neither a hard line nor a soft line will cure the Middle East's inhabitants of their propensity for low-level violence, and since the region is economically stagnant and increasingly irrelevant, the only rational policy must be one of benign neglect. "Backward societies", concludes Luttwak, "must be left alone, as the French now wisely leave Corsica to its own devices, as the Italians quietly learned to do in Sicily."

Of all the commentaries I have read in the past six months, this stands out as the silliest.

. . . Today, the Middle East is in many ways just as explosive as eastern Europe a century ago; perhaps even more so. Does Luttwak seriously believe that the disintegration of Iraq (or for that matter Iran, which he envisages) can be compared with the trivial disorders of Corsica and Sicily? Violence in Iraq is currently claiming the lives of around 3,000 people a month. Since 1998, according to the Memorial Institute for the Prevention of Terrorism, Middle Eastern terrorism has killed 24,289 people and wounded nearly double that number - more than half of all the worldwide casualties due to terrorism. Is this Luttwak's idea of an acceptable level of violence? And would he like to estimate how many people may die in the next 10 years, as Iraq falls apart and the Israel-Iran showdown reaches its climax?

What's more, it is ludicrous to claim that the Middle East is economically irrelevant. True, the west is less dependent on oil from the region than in the Seventies, but has no one pointed out to Luttwak the recent and future trajectory of global oil supply and demand? The oil fields of the rest of the world are likely to be exhausted much sooner than the oil fields of the Middle East, which today account for 62 per cent of proved reserves, compared with 54 per cent in 1980. Meanwhile, Asia's economic boom is causing an unprecedented increase in demand. If Middle Eastern oil is so unimportant, why were crude futures up to $67 a barrel last week?

Far from benign neglect, what is desperately needed in the Middle East today is a more effective policy of diplomatic intervention - to establish some kind of rule amid the division. My worry is that, with two US aircraft carrier strike groups off the Iranian coast, and an admiral newly appointed as Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, precisely the wrong kind of intervention may be about to happen.

Read the entire story here. While I find Mr. Ferguson's analysis, as usual, spot on, I find his conclusion unrealistic. Diplomacy has not and will not work in the Middle East. I think, in fact, the Armagedon of which Mr. Ferguson warns is inevitable unless we succeed in breaking the cycle and bring stability to Iraq. The only thing that will achieve that end is the use of force. It is the one single tool of diplomacy that has ever proven effective in the Middle East.

The Half Monti

2007-06-17T03:42:00.000-04:00

OUCH . . . . OUCH, OUCH, OUCH

According to Liverpool court records, young Ms. Amanda Monti, 24, at the conclusion of a house party, decided she wanted to play 'hide the salami' with party guest, Mr. Geoffrey Jones, 37. And she was not about to take "no" for an answer.

Mr. Jones, for whatever reason, did not wish to share his salami. Instead, he rebuffed the advances of Ms. Monti.

Ms. Monti, in a fit of angst, then placed both hands upon Mr. Jones naughty bits through his pants and proceeded to yank . . . hard. At the end of the first yank, she had caused Mr. Jones extreme agony, but had only succeeded in pulling off his pants and underpants.

Not satisfied, Ms. Monti then proceeded to firmly grasp Mr. Jones's left testicle in her clawed mits and gave a tremendous heave. She met with more success this time, managing to pull said testicle completely free of said Mr. Jones's body.

Evidently hungry from her herculean efforts, Ms. Monti saw in her hands not merely the recently detached testicle of the now in shock Mr. Jones, but a tempting hors d'oeuvre. Unable to resist, Ms. Monti tossed it into her mouth for a bit of epicurean delight. Court records show that she eventually spit out the masticated remains. Though not in the records, reports are that she then muttered something to the effect of "needs salt."

The attack has left Mr. Jones permanently shy one half of his jewels. Thus, from the country that gave us the Full Monty, we now have the much more terrifying Half Monti.

The Liverpool Crown Court, before passing judgment, described this partial emasculation of Mr. Jones as a "very serious injury." We think that a classic of British understatement. The Court then sentenced Ms. Monti to a mere 2 1/2 years in prison.

I think that I can speak for every male reading this - each of whom is unconsciously squeezing his legs together for protection and wincing in sympathetic pain - that the Court's sentence of Ms. Monti is more then grossly inadequate.

I am unsure precisely what lessons should be take away from this, though at least one seems clear. Given that the Courts will not provide adequate justice, when a drunken woman demands sex, out of sheer self defense, you should not turn her away. By God, men, don the beer goggles if you must, but in any event, protect yourselves.

Read the entire story here.

The Italian Government's Unique Model For Addressing Crime

2007-06-16T20:21:00.000-04:00

I admit that I do not know much about the Italian government of Romano Prodi, but I think it a fair bet that they are a left wing, permissive lot operating more then a little outside the boundaries of reality. My sole evidence for that is the rather unique approach to crime taken by the Prodi government. Faced with prison overcrowding, the government response was to throw open the doors of jails, releasing some 15,000 prisoners in a massive amnesty program of criminals with three years or less remaining on their sentences. No doubt to the amazement of the left, Italy has since found itself in the grips of a massive crime wave. One can only imagine Prodi's ministers sitting in their offices, racking their brains trying to determine what possibly could be the cause:

Armed robberies of Italian banks and building societies have soared after a controversial prisoner amnesty in the country's crowded jails.

Last year's indulto, or pardon, for prisoners with less than three years left to serve caused uproar.

More than 15,000 inmates were released. Within hours, dozens had been arrested and sent back to jail after reoffending. New crime figures have again fuelled the controversy.

The number of bank robberies has risen nationwide, official statistics say, including a staggering 102 per cent increase in Piedmont, in the north.

There have also been marked increases in Veneto (85.1 per cent) and the Marche region (86.9 per cent), where, after a three-day series of bank raids that netted more than £70,000, police arrested six people and found that all had been released under the amnesty.

In Turin, three men arrested for holding up a bank inside a hospital disguised as doctors were also found to be pardoned ex-prisoners.

One ex-convict, released after serving seven years for armed robbery, was arrested as he fled the scene of a raid in Milan and told police: "I needed the money to visit my girlfriend in Cuba."

In another case in Milan a man who was released early from a 10-year sentence for robbing 25 banks was back inside within a week after holding up several cashiers. He was arrested after one of them recognised him from an earlier hold-up.

There were 194 bank robberies nationwide in the month before the amnesty was introduced last July. After the law was passed by Romano Prodi's centre-Left coalition that figure rose steadily, peaking at 332 in October - at an average of more than 10 a day.

When the amnesty was introduced, Italy's prison population was 62,000; its jails have a capacity of 45,000. Ministry of Interior officials told The Sunday Telegraph that so far 26,000 prisoners had been released and that more than 3,000 - or 11.5 per cent - had been sent back to jail. The amnesty has come in for scathing criticism from the opposition, with the Alleanza Nazionale leader Gianfranco Fini saying: "The law is an insult to law-abiding Italian citizens." . . .

Read the entire story here.

Dirty Bomb Threat High & Rising

2007-06-16T19:44:00.000-04:00

This somber report appears in today's Telegraph (UK):

The threat of terrorists attacking Britain with a radioactive "dirty bomb" has grown rapidly in recent months, a leading defence expert has warned.

Prof Sandra Bell spoke out following the sentencing last week of seven al-Qaeda "foot soldiers" who had plotted dirty bomb attacks in Britain and the United States.

The men were jailed for a total of 136 years at Woolwich Crown Court. Their leader, Dhiren Barot, is serving life for conspiracy to murder.

Prof Bell, the director of homeland security at the Royal United Services Institute, said: "The threat from dirty bombs is now higher than it was two years ago, and has increased significantly over the last six months.

"I used to think you had more chance of winning the lottery than of being attacked with radiation weapons, but times are changing." She said that turmoil in parts of Africa and the former Soviet Union had created a black market in radioactive materials which could be used to lace a conventional bomb.

"Rather than maximise civilian casualties, the terrorists are now trying to cause as much disruption to public services as possible," she said. "Widespread radiation emitted by dirty bombs would be ideal for this."

. . . Dame Eliza Manningham-Buller, the former head of MI5, warned three years ago that it was "only a matter of time" until terrorists launched a dirty bomb attack on the West.

Read the entire article here. Do you think there is anything to be concerned with if we further embolden the terrorists by leaving them to claim victory in Iraq? Sheer suicide.

News From The Surge - As It Begins In Earnest

2007-06-16T18:27:00.000-04:00

Now with all five combat brigades on the ground, General Petraues tells us that the surge will begin in earnest, moving into al Qaeda positions in Diyala and in the belts surrounding Baghdad - the areas that were either long term al Qaeda strongholds or areas that al Qaeda has retreated to escape the offensives in Baghdad and and Anbar.

US Defence Secretary Robert Gates said Saturday that a troop surge in Iraq is only starting to have its full impact and that it is too soon to tell whether conditions will be ripe by September for decisions on US force levels.

The US commander in Iraq, General David Petraeus, said that the latest troop reinforcements to arrive in theatre had enabled the military to begin major operations against Al-Qaeda rear-bases outside the capital.

"While I indicated yesterday that I think we'll see some trends and be able to point in some directions by September, the full impact of the surge is really just beginning to be felt," Gates said.

. . . Petraeus and US ambassador Ryan Crocker are supposed to report to a sceptical Congress in September on whether the surge is working or whether an alternative strategy is needed.

Gates was to meet Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki later to press for more rapid progress by his Shiite-led government in reaching out to the disenchanted Sunni former elite.

He is the third senior US official to deliver the same message over the past week, following Deputy Defence Secretary John Negroponte, the former US ambassador, and Admiral William Fallon, commander of US forces in the Middle East.

"We are pressing hard on those (reconcilation benchmarks)," said the US ambassador, who joined Gates and Petraeus at a news conference.

"The Iraqi government has been pushing itself. The progress has been frustratingly slow.

"We will see where we are by September. We will report at that time honestly as to what has been achieved and what hasn't," said Crocker.

Gates, who visited troops at a joint security post in Baghdad, said there had been successes in reducing violence in Anbar province west of the capital, although security had deteriorated in Diyala province to its north.

"In terms of the security situation, as I say we've got two months, three months to go. There are some positive trends, there are some negative trends," he said.

Petraeus said it was possible to make progress over the next few months.

"And then we'll see how long we'll sustain the surge, and how long we can sustain the surge, because those considerations enter into it as well."

. . . US troops levels in Iraq swelled to 155,000 over the past week as the last of five additional combat brigades deployed, US commanders said.

Petraeus said "fairly large coordinated offensive operations" had been launched against Al-Qaeda in areas outside Baghdad in the previous 24 hours.

"We have been doing what we might be calling shaping operations in a lot of these areas, doing intelligence gathering, putting in some special operators, going in but then coming out," he said.

"And now for the first time are we going to some key areas in the belt from which Al-Qaeda has sallied forth with car bombs and additional fighters and so forth."

Read the entire story here.

The military is reporting on the results of several raids tied to the new offensive.

Iraqi and coalition forces captured one terrorist leader and killed 16 suspected terrorists today. Ten more insurgents died in fighting yesterday.

Coalition forces in Baghdad captured five suspected terrorists, including an alleged al Qaeda in Iraq emir whose organization includes a deadly car-bomb cell in the city, during two raids today. At one targeted location, coalition forces destroyed two vehicles used to transport explosives and personnel for the terrorist network.

An operation in Mosul killed one terrorist. Outside the targeted building, a man identified as Izz al-Din, also known as Abu Ahmad, drew a weapon on the approaching ground forces. Coalition forces engaged and killed him. One suspected terrorist was detained on scene for his involvement with Abu Ahmad.

Abu Ahmad was the head of five terrorist cells in Mosul and was responsible for directing attacks against Iraqi and coalition forces, U.S. officials said.

Yesterday, Multinational Division Baghdad troops killed 10 insurgents who had launched a series of roadside-bomb and small-arms-fire ambushes in the West Rashid district of southern Baghdad.

. . . Meanwhile, a number of raids have taken place involving the discovery and seizure of enemy munitions. In one raid yesterday, nine individuals were detained on suspicion of running a bomb-making cell in the east Doura neighborhood of Baghdad’s Rashid district.

. . . In other news, troops seized several caches on June 13. Baghdad troops teamed up with a platoon of Iraqi national police to conduct a raid in the eastern Sadr City district.

The troops discovered three complete 60 mm mortar systems, complete 82 mm and 120 mm mortar systems, four 120 mm mortar rounds, 32 60 mm mortar rounds, three 107 mm rockets, a rifle scope, two AK-47 rifles, two sets of body armor, and a variety of weapon manuals.

An air and ground assault took place on two houses in Salman Pak on June 13. The raids yielded two 107 mm rockets, homemade explosives, two AK-47 assault rifles, a bolt-action rifle, several propane tanks, copper wire, ammunition, magazines, and several assault vests.

In another raid, Iraqi troops and Baghdad soldiers raided a weapons cache in the Yarmouk neighborhood. The cache contained 113 landmines, 63 grenades, three rockets, three mortars, two gas masks, five washing machine timers, more than 2,000 rounds of AK-47 ammunition, and seven boxes of various electronics and other assorted explosives.

It is the largest weapons cache discovery by U.S. or Iraqi forces to date in the Yarmouk area, U.S. officials said.

Read the entire story here.

The increased operational tempo and chasing the rats down their holes is inevitably going to lead to more U.S. casualties.

The fight for security in Baghdad is likely to “get harder over the coming months as we engage an increasingly desperate enemy,” the deputy secretary of state said in Baghdad today.

John D. Negroponte, who served as U.S. ambassador to Iraq from 2004 until assuming his current post in February, spoke with reporters after two days of meetings in Iraq with senior U.S. and Iraqi leaders.

All recognize that as the Baghdad security plan reaches full stride with the last of the surge troops arriving this month, difficult days are likely to remain ahead, he said.

Read the entire story here. For most of us, this is the unfortunate cost of succeeding in any military conflict. For Harry Reid, it is twisted into a sign of American failure.

On a far more important note then Senator Reid, here is a fascinating briefing on Mental Health in the military:

Trainwreck Trent

2007-06-16T16:04:00.000-04:00

I have posted previously that Trent Lott is the worst of a pretty motley lot of Republicans in Congress. He is the anti-Reagen - big spending, a lover of earmarks and back room deal making, and a hypocrite. He is, in short, a trainwreck, the poster boy for why Republicans got spanked in 2006 - as independents turned to the slightly more principled Harry Reid and conservatives stayed away from the ballot booth, repelled by the stench of a Republican Party that was far more akin to the Democrat Party of early 90's.

It is certainly possible to be conservative and to be pro-immigration. Indeed, one can be strongly in the conservative camp and yet, when all facts are known, disagree strongly on well reasoned principals. It is another thing entirely to be kept in the dark and be told to shut up and blindly support whatever those we have elected present to us as a fait accompli. That is the case with the immigration bill pending before congress. This immigration bill was written in back rooms without hearings that would have allowed it and other schools of thought on the issue to be thoroughly examined and vetted. As George Will said:

. . . [T]he recent immigration legislation had three handicaps. First, it was drafted in secret -- . . . the immigration bill was not the subject of hearings that could have clarified such fundamental matters as whether immigrants are net drains on, or contributors to, the fiscal health of federal, state and local governments. Second, like many comprehensive ``solutions'' to large, intricate problems that are susceptible to incremental ameliorations, the immigration bill, . . . was presented as a package so finely calibrated and exquisitely balanced that any significant change would, as Shakespeare said:
Take but degree away, untune that string,
And, hark! what discord follows.
Third, people skeptical about the legislation were, if not demonized, cast as bigots or, at best, people uninterested in doing ``the right thing for America'' (President Bush).

Enter Trent Lott, who, as reported in the NYT, now takes aim not only at Republicans voting their conscience, but also takes direct aim at conservatives on talk radio, the only medium where conservative thought is easilly accessible and, indeed, dominant:

Comments by Republican senators on Thursday suggested that they were feeling the heat from conservative critics of the bill, who object to provisions offering legal status. The Republican whip, Trent Lott of Mississippi, who supports the bill, said: “Talk radio is running America. We have to deal with that problem.”

At some point, Mr. Lott said, Senate Republican leaders may try to rein in “younger guys who are huffing and puffing against the bill.”

This dual attack by Lott on independant thought and on the one medium that conservatives dominate is arrogant and incredibly foolish. Lott is completely out of touch with the conservative base of the Republican Party. To the Democrats, he is the best man they have in the Republican Party. To the rest of us, he is a trainwreck who needs to be challenged in his state's primaries and stripped of all leadership positions in the Senate.

Don't miss Michelle Malkin's coverage of Trent. And do visit his website at Trentlott.com.

Jasser Skewers CAIR & Its Political Islamist Agenda

2007-06-16T08:24:00.000-04:00

The Washington Times ran a story recently about the Council on American Islamic Relations, nominally a civil rights organizaton that purports to represent American Muslims. The Washington Times noted that CAIR's membership had declined by 90% since 9-11, and that they were managing to stay afloat by the good graces of 12 unnamed donors who contributed almost the entirety of CAIR's 300 million dollar operating budget. CAIR responded here, claiming with numerous adjectives the article to be incorrect, though failing contest any of the facts with contrary facts. M. Zudi Jasser, former U.S. Naval Officer and President of the American Islamic Forum for Democracy, quite eloquently takes issue with CAIR and their response to the Washington Times article:

The Washington Times printed a report by Audrey Hudson this week, “CAIR Membership falls 90% since 9/11”, discussing CAIR’s (Council on American Islamic Relations) membership numbers as disclosed on CAIR’s own 990 Tax returns. Within hours, CAIR described the report as a ‘hit-piece’ in a hate-filled rant of a press release and action alert. A review of the Times piece reveals simple reporting of data from CAIR tax forms on their dwindling membership numbers, donor numbers, and yet increasing funds.

The piece quotes Parvez Ahmed, CAIR Chairman, on the countervailing increase in the number of CAIR chapters around the country during the same period post 9/11. It also cites the recent Department of Justice (DOJ) listing of CAIR as an un-indicted co-conspirator in the Holy Land Foundation (HLF) HAMAS fundraising case. The DOJ refers therein to CAIR’s leadership and origins as, “members of the U.S. Muslim Brotherhood’s Palestine Committee and/or its organization.” For all CAIR’s objections, there was no refutation of any of this.

With the elaboration of these facts and more, CAIR still ran wild describing the Times reporter as “having a vendetta against our organization and the American Muslim community since she was barred from a recent CAIR news conference because of her sloppy and agenda-driven reporting.” With a report revealing that its national membership figures reported to the IRS are less than 1700 members in 2006, they still have the audacity to say that criticism of CAIR is equivalent to criticism of over 3 million Muslims in the “American Muslim community”.

This is, clear and simple, the modus operands of “political Islam” and its Islamist operatives. This is also more than likely one of the reasons for their dwindling membership numbers. While they may occasionally be doing good work for the civil rights of certain Muslims in America on selected cases, their Islamist political agenda and their persistence in the claim that criticism of CAIR is akin to criticism of all American Muslims is dishonest, deceptive, and a hijacking of our faith community.

Rather than respond with a semblance of a valid intellectual discourse or refutation of the ideas and facts contained in the June 12 report, CAIR preferred to respond with further empty screeds of hyperbole, victimization, and false claims of religious intolerance and hate-mongering. They claim to be working toward eliminating hate. Yet, they have a wild imagination of hate and rush to claim victimization as they deflect any substantive debate. This actually makes a compelling case for the fact that their attention to perceived incidents of intolerance for Islam and Muslims is a means to an ends of the empowerment of political Islam. In fact Nihad Awad told a gathering of Muslims just that in April in a discussion on their ‘flying imam’ lawsuit in Virginia at ADAMS (All Dulles Area Muslim Society),
Reporting to an organization like CAIR is important, because it is empowering. It is empowering to the Muslims themselves who report, it is empowering to the organization, and it is important to the status of Muslims within the United States. Also it is a powerful tool and message to the government and the legislators, to those who make the laws in the country, to know that this phenomenon has to be dealt with, it has to be dealt with effectively, and results have to be seen….
CAIR scavenges for claims of civil rights abuses not necessarily just to try and humbly build bridges to the greater American community. Is their agenda, in fact, more about empowering Islamists and intimidating non-Islamists?

The rule of law and the protections of our Constitution are certainly the cornerstone of the protection of our rights of religious freedom in America. But there is a fine line between the legitimate representation of individual Muslims whose rights of religious freedom have been infringed and the blatant manipulation of a system for the advancement of a variant political ideology at the expense of some victims.

True to form in the usual Islamist fallback to public criticism, CAIR claimed that the Washington Times was ‘anti-Muslim’ and ‘anti-Islam’. They use the protection of religion when the facts are not on their side. They use the discourse of politics when they want to push forth their Islamist agenda with the presumption of speaking for all Muslims. They will delve into the political only on their own terms in both foreign and domestic policy but when they are on the receiving end of political criticism they run for cover under the guise of victimization.

Why all of the venom directed at the Washington Times or at their reporter, Audrey Hudson-- one of the few national reporters willing to peel the Islamist onion and look deeper into Islamist organizations like CAIR and their ideologies? There is absolutely nothing in the Times report anti-Islamic or anti-Muslim. It is simply critical of CAIR. To say that CAIR is synonymous with Islam or Muslims is Islamism and gives all Muslim non-members of CAIR (the vast majority of American Muslims) short shrift.

It is long overdue for America and especially for Muslims to discuss why such political discourse and reporting could ever be described by an organization like CAIR as being anti-Muslim or anti-Islamic. In fact, a more cogent argument could be made that such reports are pro-Muslim and pro-Islam since they ultimately rescue most Muslims from the grip of Islamists and Wahhabists. Such discussion of realities and ideologies will go a long way toward preserving a positive image of Islam and the inclusiveness of all Muslims under a purely spiritual Islam devoid of a political agenda.

Nothing is more clarifying than, CAIR’s Ibrahim Hooper’s own quotation in their Action Alert,
“It is CAIR’s principled and effective defense of the American Muslim community and our criticism of failed foreign and domestic policies that have made us the target of these scurrilous attacks. We will not be intimidated or silenced by hate-mongers.”
Herein, CAIR claims to be defenders of the entire Muslim community. Where did I sign up for that? Herein, CAIR admits to its primary active critique of American domestic and foreign policy on behalf of the entire American Muslim community. Thus, CAIR and so many of the other American Islamist organizations are about much more than simply “defending the civil rights of Muslims”. If only they stuck to civil rights, less Muslims would have problems with them. They are about the penetration of political Islam into our foreign and domestic policy under the guise of civil rights. In fact, their constant refrain about intimidation and hate-mongering is in fact a cultivation of their own industry. The lawsuit they are sponsoring on behalf of the ‘flying imams’ in Shqeirat v. U.S. Airways, et al, is much more about intimidation than about bridge-building or religious freedom as AIFD has noted.

The next step in this assessment of constituency is to understand their ideology. So much of the substantive criticism of CAIR arises from their unwillingness to be specific in condemnations of radical Muslims, radical organizations, and despotic regimes. Perhaps their dwindling numbers are in fact an ideological problem which does not speak to the majority of American Muslims. Honest debate will have to include a discussion of CAIR’s and other American Islamist organization responses to the following questions which I have been querying for a long time.

1- Will CAIR work to dismantle and lead an organized effort against terrorist organizations and individuals by name beginning with Al Qaeda, Islamic Jihad, Jamaat al-Islamiya, and HAMAS to name just a few of the radical Islamist enemies of America? Will they name and ideologically engage the extremism of the Wahhabists of Saudi Arabia, the theocrats of Iran or the despots of Syria, Egypt or Sudan, and the litany of other dictatorships in the Muslim world? Empty generic condemnations of terrorism are of no impact.

2- Will CAIR acknowledge that political Islam (Islamism) whether militant or not, is the toxin which feeds the terrorism committed by radicalized Muslims?

3- Will CAIR acknowledge the need out of honesty for a faith-based civil rights organization to equally focus upon the civil rights abuses of Muslims by other Muslims as well as by non-Muslims whether it occurs in mosques, Muslim organizations, or so-called Muslim nations? A dismissal of Muslim abuses is hypocrisy.

4- Will CAIR acknowledge that counter-terrorism is a greater public responsibility to the organized American Muslim community than the obsession with the protection of our civil rights? Is it not the primary role of Muslim American organizations to lead the ideological war against radical Islamists? Isn’t this the number one issue on the mind of most Americans in 2007? Non-Muslims can do nothing to deconstruct this poisonous ideology. Our fellow Americans living in fear for their security are looking for us to lead this fight. The credibility of Muslims is suffering deeply as a result of the complete denial of this responsibility by groups like CAIR. In fact, there may be no better way to preserve our rights than by leading an ideological movement against political Islam and militant Islamism.

5- Will CAIR join anti-Islamist Muslims in declaring that the “Islamic state” regardless of its democratic processes is in principle significantly inferior to a “pluralistic Constitutional democracy under God” like the United States? Will CAIR declare the concept of a global Caliphate as archaic and no longer relevant to Muslims in the 21st century? Is the concept of the Muslim “ummah” or “nation” archaic?

6- Will CAIR join what was described in the Pew poll as the 49% of Muslims who felt that the mosque was not the place for the discussion of politics? Will they then help AIFD expose political sermons and their agenda around the United States? Will they moreover call upon our fellow co-religionists to fully and unequivocally separate the spiritual from the political? If they will not, will they recognize that they only represent Islamists and those who believe in political Islam—the remaining 51% according to Pew?

7- How can they honestly claim to speak for anyone beyond their membership and donors?

The Washington Times piece about CAIR was not a hit-piece nor was it anti-Muslim or anti-Islamic. It begins the long overdue debate about the agenda of organizations like CAIR and where they stand with regard to political Islam and these questions. Soon, mainstream media and government leaders are going to need finally to begin to ignore the intimidation tactics of organizations like CAIR and to engage political Islam on the questions above.

They need to do so without fear of violating political correctness or offending pious Muslims. Spiritual Islam and non-Islamist Muslims in fact still are often at the mercy of Islamists, not just in America but across the globe. This is often not only due to the passivity of the majority of non-activist Muslims but to the propping up by government and the MSM of Islamists. We saw this in the recent refusal of PBS to air ABG Films, Inc. documentary, Islam v Islamists. Many anti-Islamist Muslims yearn for the day when the personal domain of the faith of Islam is not poisoned by any national domestic and foreign policy agendas of Islamist organizations like CAIR. American political discourse by activist Muslims should be all about our common national interests and universal humanitarian principles and not about being Muslim, Islamic, or being victims. The Muslims who cannot make this distinction may as well form overt Islamic political parties and make it more obvious as to their intentions and platforms when it comes to American domestic and foreign policy.

Read the entire story here.

Unbelievable Part II - The Semifinals

2007-06-16T06:44:00.000-04:00

Paul Potts, whose initial performance in Britain's Got Talent was simply astounding, advanced through the semi-finals with an equally powerful and moving piece. As you watch the video, you can see just how much the fans - and the judges - just love this man whose talent is extraordinary. The finals will be Sunday.

Military's Quarterly Report on Iraq

2007-06-16T05:49:00.000-04:00

You can find the U.S. Military’s Quarterly Report to Congress on Iraq here. The report covers the first two and a half months of the surge through the end of April, 2007. The surge is having an effect. Some highlights:

Sectarian murders peaked in December 06 with over, 1,100 sectarian incidents resulting in 1,600 sectarian murders. In April, the number of sectarian incidents was significantly down to just over 400 incidents with just over 600 sectarian murders.

Weapons caches found in Iraq numbered just 100 in July 2006. In April 2007, they numbered just shy of 700.

One of the most important figures – cooperation by the locals – can be roughly gauged from the number of tips being fed to coalition forces. Tips increased from a low of 4000 in June, 2006 to over 12,000 during April, 2007.

The coalition is having a lot more success as regards car bombs (VBIED). Car bombs found and cleared comprised roughly 69% of all VBIED incidents.

Al Qaeda in Iraq is the single greatest cause of violence in Iraq today.

Overall, violence is the same this quarter as last. The reasons are al Qaeda has moved into belts surrounding Baghdad and into Diyala Province to escape the surge and the Sunni uprising in Anbar. Al Qaeda is using suicide attacks and suicide car bombs against soft targets in these areas to keep the level of violence high.

The final elements of the surge are just now in place and it will be several months before any judgment can be made on the likelihood of success.

This quarterly report makes no mention of any area of Iraq being close to civil war

EXCERPTS From the Report:

Executive Summary

The strategic goal of the United States in Iraq remains a united Iraq that can govern, defend and sustain itself and is an ally in the war on terror. This report measures progress toward— and setbacks from—achieving this goal during this reporting period. Although the objectives have not changed, the strategy and tactics for achieving them have been modified and will continue to adapt to an evolving situation. The United States and its Coalition partners remain committed to help the Iraqi people assume full responsibility for their country.

. . . Sectarian killings have declined, especially in Baghdad; vehicle-borne improvised explosive devices (VBIEDs) found and cleared comprised roughly 69% of all VBIED incidents; and national confidence in the Government of Iraq’s (GoI) ability to improve the security environment reached its highest level (63%) in twelve months. In another somewhat encouraging development, Sunni tribal resistance to al Qaeda in Iraq (AQI) along the Euphrates River Valley has been growing and—combined with a robust Coalition presence in Fallujah and Ramadi and increased effectiveness of Iraqi forces—is hindering AQI operations. However, local Sunni cooperation with and support to Coalition forces in Anbar Province is not uniform. As a result of this tribal resistance, violence in Anbar decreased markedly during the reporting period.

However, terrorist attacks increased in other areas as AQI and other groups attempted to spread sectarian conflict. As for the status of Iraqi security forces, the United States, its Coalition partners and the Iraqi Government continued to expand the size and capability of the Iraqi forces to meet emerging requirements. As of May 14, 2007, approximately 346,500 Iraqi personnel received training and equipment. Given the persistence of the violence by insurgents, terrorists and militias, the Iraqi forces will require continued training, development and equipping to be able to progressively assume missions from Coalition forces. Some of the main areas being addressed to increase the Iraqi forces’ capabilities include reform of the Ministry of Interior (MoI) forces, development of Ministry of Defense (MoD) and MoI logistics and administrative capabilities, development of combat enablers for the military forces and development of junior leaders.

On the political front, the United States and its Coalition partners are working with the GoI to safeguard gains and to develop strong institutions that impartially serve all Iraqis. Key legislative or reconciliation actions—such as the Hydrocarbon Law, de-Ba'athification reform, and Article 140 (Kirkuk)—were not completed during this reporting period, although progress was made. Encouraging efforts include the selection of the High Electoral Commission and the continuation of work on constitutional reform. During this period, Provincial Reconstruction Teams (PRT) were doubled to enhance local and provincial administrative capacity. Reconciliation remains a serious unfulfilled objective.

While significant challenges remain, several positive economic developments emerged. The most significant was the launch in Egypt on May 3, 2007 of the International Compact with Iraq to help Iraq gain assistance and debt relief contingent on political and economic reforms. Additionally, the Central Bank of Iraq made progress in reducing price inflation, and GoI statistics show a slight improvement in employment. The International Monetary Fund found satisfactory Iraqi performance to date under the Standby Arrangement. However, oil production, the principal economic driver in Iraq, is not growing and remained at about the same levels as during this period in 2006 due to poor infrastructure and inadequate security.

Additional efforts will be needed to build the capacity of Iraqi ministries and provinces to execute their capital investment budgets, particularly for the oil sector, which is the key to supporting economic development. The Department of Defense continued to help the GoI revitalize certain state-owned enterprises to increase employment and make them more attractive for privatization.

Overall, it is too early to assess the impact of the new approach. For the period covered by this report, the additional forces to support the new approach were not fully in place, and those that were had only a limited time to conduct operations. In addition, new initiatives such as enhanced PRTs and focused efforts to improve GoI budget execution and rule of law remain in their initial stages. On the political front, reconciliation is a top priority. Economically, further provision of goods and services by the GoI that benefit the Iraqi population is required. Progress will depend on Iraqi follow-through on their commitments made as part of the new approach; the actions of insurgents, militia and terrorists to disrupt reconciliation will be a key challenge to the Iraqi government’s ability to fulfill its commitments. . .

Iranian Influence

Various Shi’a and Kurdish politicians maintain longstanding relationships with Iranian officials and state organizations, and Iran maintains longstanding economic and religious ties to Iraq. The Iranians likely seek a Shi’a dominated Iraqi government that is deferential to and supportive of Iranian interests.

The Iranian regime’s primary tool for exercising clandestine influence in Iraq is the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps’ (IRGC) Qods Force (QF), which provides arms, intelligence, funds, training, and propaganda support to Iraqi Shi’a militants targeting and killing Coalition and Iraqi forces, as well as Iraqi civilians. The QF seeks to increase long-term Iranian strategic influence in Iraq and the withdrawal of U.S. forces. Among the weapons it provides to Iraqi militants are improvised explosive devices (IEDs), advanced IED technologies (including explosively formed projectiles (EFPs)), and rockets and mortars used for indirect fire attacks. U.S. forces in Iraq are acting to disrupt any network—regardless of nationality—that provides weapons to Iraqi militants and insurgents. These actions are consistent with the mandate granted to the MNF-I by both the UN Security Council and the GoI to take all necessary measures to contribute to the maintenance of Iraq’s security and stability, as well as defense. The USG has urged Iran to play a more constructive role in Iraq.

Syrian Influence

Syria seeks to maintain ties with the New Ba’ath Party in Iraq and to hasten the withdrawal of Coalition forces from the region. Syria has emerged as an important organizational and coordination hub for elements of the former Iraqi regime, allowing these groups to engage in activities hostile to our efforts from within Syrian borders. Although Damascus has made some recent improvements in combating cross-border terrorist movements by arresting insurgents it considers a threat to its own internal security, terrorists and foreign fighters continue to find sanctuary, border transit opportunities, and logistical support in Syria.

Tensions on the Border with Turkey

Turkey’s primary concerns regarding Iraq continue to be terrorism executed by the Kurdistan Peoples Congress (KGK, formerly PKK) and the final status of the oil-rich city of Kirkuk. Public disagreements between Turkish and Kurdish leaders have strained relations between Turkey and Iraq and continued KGK terrorism in Turkey (along with heightened civil-military tensions in Turkey as it approaches national elections in July) are likely to increase those strains. The U.S. Special Envoy for Countering the KGK continues to engage Turkish and Iraqi counterparts to increase cooperation against the terrorist threat from the KGK. Progress has been made toward a tripartite agreement on closing down Makhmour refugee camp, which will eliminate a potential haven for KGK propaganda and influence on young Turkish Kurds.

Tensions in Kirkuk have nevertheless increased in recent months. According to Article 140 of the Iraqi Constitution, a referendum must be held on the final status of Kirkuk by the end of 2007. Turkoman and Arab communities’ concern over increased Kurdish control of Kirkuk’s governing institutions has led Turkey to speak out on behalf of the Turkoman community in protest of the perceived Kurdish goal of independence. . .

Security Environment

. . . Much of the violence is attributable to sectarian friction, and each faction is driven by its own political and economic power relationships. Illegally armed groups are engaged in a cycle of sectarian and politically motivated violence, using tactics that include indiscriminate bombing, murder, executions, and indirect fire to intimidate and to provoke sectarian conflict. The United States is supporting Iraqi efforts to reduce sectarian violence in Baghdad, regain control over the capital, and defeat al Qaeda in Iraq (AQI) and its supporters, ensuring that they find no safe haven in Iraq.

. . . In support of political efforts, Operation Fardh al-Qanoon (FAQ) was launched on February 14, 2007 as the main security component of the New Way Forward. FAQ is intended to provide population security, primarily in Baghdad, to contain the sectarian violence and give Iraqis an opportunity to pursue political reconciliation and to implement government reforms. FAQ involves an increase of five U.S. Brigade Combat Teams (BCTs) and support forces; four of the five BCTs are now in place. The remaining BCT will be in place in June.

. . . Nonetheless, Iraqi units are generally performing up to expectations. Although the initial battalions had mixed results in deploying at desired manning levels, units deployed later had sufficient soldiers and officers to meet operational requirements, and some Iraqi commanders showed an ability to plan, command, and control relatively
sophisticated joint and/or combined operations.

. . . Prime Minister Maliki has verbally committed to a militia demobilization, disarmament, and re-integration (DDR) program. A 12 May amnesty workshop named an executive director of the program. In early April, Prime Minister Maliki approved the DDR committee structure and appointed an Executive Director for the committee. As of
this report, committee members have yet to be appointed and work has not begun on drafting a DDR plan. The 2007 Iraqi budget includes US$150 million to institute this program. Militia will remain a problem as long as the public lacks confidence in the ability of the Iraqi Army and Police to adequately perform the protective role that militia claim in many communities. Establishing an effective DDR program will probably require technical assistance from the international community as well as broad support from within Iraq. In addition, the extent of the Iraqi public’s commitment to such a program is unclear. In Baghdad, a majority of residents report that militias act in the best interest of the Iraqi people. On a positive note, only 20% of respondents held this view nationwide.

Overall Assessment of the Security Environment

The overall level of violence in Iraq this quarter remained similar to the previous reporting period but shifted location. Insurgents and extremists are unable to operate as freely in Baghdad because of FAQ and in Anbar Province because of growing tribal opposition to AQI. Accordingly, many insurgents and extremists have moved operations to Diyala, Ninewa, and the outlying areas of Baghdad Province. Outside Baghdad and Anbar, reductions in Coalition force presence and reliance upon local Iraqi security forces have resulted in a tenuous security situation. Sectarian violence and insurgent attacks still involve a very small portion of the population, but public perceptions of violence have adversely affected reconciliation and contribute to population migration. Early indications are that sectarian killings have declined (albeit possibly temporarily) in Baghdad and that some Sunni tribes in Anbar Province will no longer tolerate AQI operations. Continued operations should build upon these encouraging signs.

The conflict in Iraq remains complex and requires that the GoI and the Coalition continue to undercut the root causes throughout the country. FAQ demonstrates that some positive changes in the dynamics that perpetuate violence may be possible, but more time, and careful analysis will be required before conclusions about the effectiveness of this effort can be reached. Some preliminary results include a significant increase in the number of caches cleared (reaching a 12-month high in April) and a significant reduction in sectarian murders and executions nationwide.

Assessment of the Security Environment—

Baghdad

Baghdad is the center of gravity in the struggle for political and economic influence in Iraq for irreconcilable violent groups. Although it is still too early to assess whether a sustainable trend is emerging, attacks in Baghdad declined as Coalition and Iraqi force presence expanded while Sunni insurgent groups and Shi’a militants departed or refrained from operations. Despite the departure of large numbers of JAM fighters from Baghdad, JAM has continued to act as a de-facto government in Sadr City.

Although sectarian-motivated Iraqi-on-Iraqi violence has declined in Baghdad, violence against Coalition and Iraqi security forces remained consistent with previous levels. Despite heightened security measures and increased ISF proficiency at reducing civilian casualties from sectarian murders and executions, AQI maintained the ability to conduct infrequent, high-profile, mass-casualty attacks in Baghdad.

Assessment of the Security Environment—

Western Iraq

AQI remains the primary threat to the security environment in Anbar Province, where it continues to target local ISF through use of vehicle-borne improvised explosive devices (VBIEDs), suicide attacks, assassinations, and hit-and-run attacks to subvert and undermine governmental institutions. There are some early signs that are encouraging as Sunni tribal resistance to AQI along the Euphrates River Valley has grown, and combined with a robust ISF and Coalition presence in Fallujah and Ramadi, has begun to hinder AQI operations. However, local Sunni cooperation with and support to Coalition forces in Anbar Province is not uniform. Moreover, the Iraqi public in Western Iraq is increasingly willing to provide intelligence and report weapons caches. As part of the increase in force levels, 4,000 additional Marines are currently deploying into Anbar Province.

These additional Marines, in conjunction with an expansion of the ISF, and aided by increasing tribal resistance to AQI, are pushing AQI out of many of the population centers, facilitating stability in large parts of the province. Although tribal resistance to AQI is a positive development in Anbar, insurgent groups continue to attack Coalition and ISF targets in other areas in western Iraq, excluding Anbar. The recent success of tribal engagement in Anbar Province is primarily driven by a concerted campaign of widespread contact with the Anbar tribes ranging from the
Syrian border to Baghdad. The Sahawa al- Iraqi (SAI), formerly known as Sahawa al- Anbar, an anti-AQI tribal movement led by 41-year-old Sheikh Abdul Sattar Bezea Fitikhan al-Rishawi, claims 24 tribes as organizational members. Primarily Ramadicentric, SAI is representative of the capabilities of tribal alliances to assist the Coalition in fighting AQI and other resistance elements. Though notable for its contributions to fighting AQI, the SAI is not alone in tribal efforts to eradicate AQI. Large and influential tribes, such as the Albu Mahal, Albu Nimr, and Albu Issa, have also actively opposed AQI.

Euphrates River Valley has grown, and combined with a robust ISF and Coalition presence in Fallujah and Ramadi, has begun to hinder AQI operations. However, local Sunni cooperation with and support to Coalition forces in Anbar Province is not uniform. Moreover, the Iraqi public in Western Iraq is increasingly willing to provide intelligence and report weapons caches. As part of the increase in force levels, 4,000 additional Marines are currently deploying into Anbar Province. These additional Marines, in conjunction with an expansion of the ISF, and aided by increasing tribal resistance to AQI, are pushing AQI out of many of the population centers, facilitating stability in large parts of the province. Although tribal resistance to AQI is a positive development in Anbar, insurgent groups continue to attack Coalition and ISF targets in other areas in western Iraq, excluding Anbar.

The recent success of tribal engagement in Anbar Province is primarily driven by a concerted campaign of widespread contact with the Anbar tribes ranging from the Syrian border to Baghdad. The Sahawa al- Iraqi (SAI), formerly known as Sahawa al- Anbar, an anti-AQI tribal movement led by 41-year-old Sheikh Abdul Sattar Bezea
Fitikhan al-Rishawi, claims 24 tribes as organizational members. . . .

SAI is representative of the capabilities of tribal alliances to assist the Coalition in fighting AQI and other resistance elements. Though notable for its contributions to fighting AQI, the SAI is not alone in tribal efforts to eradicate AQI.

Large and influential tribes, such as the Albu Mahal, Albu Nimr, and Albu Issa, have also actively opposed AQI.

Assessment of the Security Environment—

Central/Northern Iraq

Outside of Baghdad, this reporting period saw increased inter-sectarian violence in Diyala, increased high-profile attacks in northern Iraq by AQI, and Coalition and Iraqi forces confronting the JAM—the Shi’a militia associated with the radical cleric Muktada-al Sadr—in Diwaniyah. Ongoing ethnic and sectarian violence in central and northern Iraq is a reflection of AQI and JAM elements competing for political control of Diyala Province—particularly as some of the Baghdad militia fighters moved to the province. On a positive note, there are initial signs that some tribes in Diyala are discussing ways of countering AQI. Coalition forces are using lessons learned in tribal engagement in Anbar to help reconciliation efforts in areas such as Abu Ghraib, Samara and Bayji.

In Ninewa Province, Mosul is AQI’s northern strategic base and serves as a way-station for foreign fighters entering from Syria. There, insurgent and terrorist groups have increased the frequency and intensity of attacks on the local police. AQI’s efforts to reignite sectarian violence in Tal’Afar through high-profile attacks against civilians reflects its desire to undermine stability along sectarian fault lines and deepen the conflict in Iraq. Coalition forces deployed to Baqubah in mid-March and local ISF units have been unable to diminish rising sectarian violence contributingto the volatile security situation.

AQI has shifted some of its focus to the north. This is due in part to expanded Coalition and Iraqi operations in Baghdad and the rise of ethnic tensions in Kirkuk. These tensions may mount as property is reallocated to Kurds displaced under the previous regime’s Arabization programs and as the prospect of a census and referendum on Kirkuk’s status looms. Kurdish and Sunni Arab concerns about fair distribution of hydrocarbon revenues also could exacerbate tensions.

Assessment of the Security Environment—

Kurdish Region

The overall security situation is stable in Dahuk, Irbil, and Sulaymaniyah, and several foreign countries are establishing consulates and pursuing oil and energy business interests in the Kurdish region. However, the attack on May 9 against the Kurdish Ministry of Interior in Irbil demonstrates that AQI maintains its ability to strike in the Kurdish region. Violence occurs mostly in outlying areas near the border with Iran.

Traditional conflicts with Ansar al-Sunnah (AS) have ebbed and flowed in the Patriotic Union of Kurdistan (PUK) region since the mid- 1990’s. The newly formed Brigades of Kurdistan announced their intent to attack the Kurdish government but the capabilities of the group is unknown. While AQI’s increased presence in northern Iraq is of growing concern, AQI largely conducts its anti-Kurdish operations in Kirkuk and Mosul, rarely venturing to more remote areas in the region in large part due to the presence of Kurdish security forces.

The Kurdistan Regional Government (KRG) has provided relatively good governance over the three Kurdish provinces. The existence of the Kongra Gel (KGK) and the potential for border skirmishes with Turkey or Iran, and in the case of the KGK, possible cross-border operations by the Turkish Army, are issues that could increase tensions in the Kurdish region.

Assessment of the Security Environment—

Southern Iraq

The security situation in southern Iraq is characterized by competition between various Shi’a militia, factions, tribes and organized criminals aligned with various parties positioning themselves for greater influence over local authorities and resources. Supreme Iraqi Islamic Council (formerly SCIRI) (SIIC) maintains a strong political presence in the south. Increased political competition between SIIC and the Office of Martyr Sadr (OMS), the political arm of JAM, has resulted in clashes between their respective armed wings, the Badr Organization and JAM. Some JAM members relocated to the south in response to FAQ in Baghdad, further empowering JAM in confrontations with both Badr and provincial authorities. In Basrah Province, the OMS and the governing Fadilah Party vie for dominance over local economic activity, adding to the intra-Shi’a violence. This intra- Shi’a violence has contributed to a significant increase in attacks against Coalition forces in Basrah and an observed greater hostility towards Coalition presence, as well as highlighted the failure of the Iraqi police to challenge Shi’a militants in southern Iraq. In Diwaniyah, however, a reported increase in JAM presence and aggression prompted local officials to request military action to lessen JAM’s influence and local control.

Relatively little AQI activity has been observed in southern Iraq.

Overall Attack Trends and Violence

For this report, the term “attacks” refers to specific incidents reported in the Multi-National Corps-Iraq Significant Activities Database. It includes known attacks on Coalition forces, Iraqi forces, the civilian population and infrastructure. Attacks typically involve improvised explosive devices; small arms, including sniper fire; and indirect fires. Not all civilian casualties are observed by or reported to Coalition forces; as a result, these data only provide a partial picture of the violence experienced by Iraqis.

The aggregate level of violence in Iraq remained relatively unchanged during this reporting period. Violence has decreased in the Baghdad security districts and Anbar, but has increased in most provinces, particularly in the outlying areas of Baghdad Province and Diyala and Ninewa Provinces. Since January 2007, Coalition reported murders in Baghdad proper have decreased by 51% as militia activity was disrupted by security operations. Throughout Iraq, the total number of attacks on Coalition forces, the ISF, and Iraqi civilians increased by 2% in the February through May reporting period compared with the previous quarter.

High-profile attacks, usually conducted by AQI, are now causing more casualties in Baghdad than do murders by militia, criminals, or other armed groups. Spectacular attacks on historical and significant infrastructure (such as Baghdad bridges and the Parliament building) seek to discredit FAQ, the Coalition presence, and the GoI, rather than create casualties. In Anbar province, anti-AQI sentiment is widespread, with growing tribal influence as the primary driver of decreasing violence levels. The total number of attacks in Anbar has dropped 34% since December 2006, with Ramadi—where attacks are at a two-year low—accounting for the largest decline in violence levels.

Attacks in Anbar have dropped from 35 per day in the previous reporting period to just under 26, dipping below average daily attacks in Salah ad Din Province.

Less encouraging, the number of suicide attacks across Iraq increased from 26 in January to 58 in March and remained constant at 58 in April. During the reporting period, the average number of improvised explosive devices found and cleared increased 15% from the previous quarter, and the average number of vehicleborne improvised explosive devices (VBIEDs) found and cleared rose by 69%. These gains are likely due to increased civilian cooperation and interdiction of the networks conducting these attacks.

The majority of overall attacks continue to occur against Coalition forces, while the ISF and civilians continue to suffer the majority of casualties. Consistent with previous reporting periods, most attacks occurred in Baghdad, Anbar, Salah ad Din, and Diyala provinces. Explosively formed projectile attacks were at an all-time high in April.

Public Perceptions of Security

Public perception of security is shaped by the confidence the people have in the government and its security forces, as well as the perception they have of neighborhood safety. On security, Iraqis continue to feel more positive at the local level than they do at the national level. The perceptions of safety inside and outside neighborhoods correlate with their perception of local and national tensions. Within Baghdad, the Joint Security Stations contribute to this improvement by providing local tip hotlines, and local security force responsiveness to these calls provide tangible, visible proof that the security forces are responsible to and for the people. These actions may contribute to the continued support for the dissolution of militias, not only in Baghdad, but nationwide as well. . . .

Spare The Rod, Spoil The Child, Stay Out of a UK Jail for 5 Years

2007-06-16T03:27:00.000-04:00

Should a parent be allowed to swat a recalcitrant child? While society has a stake in placing clear limits on such discipline - i.e., there is a point where hitting a child goes beyond what could be considered reasonable discipline and into child abuse that could permanently injure a child - it is also true that swatting the rug rats who don't respond to verbal remonstrations is as old a tool of child raising among mammals as the family unit itself. Outside of child abuse, it would seem that the decision to swat or not to swat should be completely up to the parents. No two children are the same, and wholly nonswatting methods that may work on one child may well not work on another. So parents should be able to choose how to raise their children. Unless, of course, you live in a state fortunate enough to be run by wonderful omnipotent leftists who know better then the individual how they should run their lives, and who know better then the parents how they should raise their children. In which case, you are in the Nanny state, such as the giant social experiment that is the UK:

Ministers have revived the prospect of an outright ban on smacking children.

Under the current law – introduced only two years ago – parents can administer mild smacks as long as they do not cause bruises or grazes. They face assault charges and up to five years in jail if they strike their children hard enough to leave a mark.

Children’s Minister Beverley Hughes yesterday announced a wide-ranging review to see if the existing legislation is succeeding in protecting children. However, she insisted there were ‘no current plans to change the legislation’ which had allowed light smacking because Labour ‘didn’t want to see decent parents criminalised’.

Anti-smacking campaigners seized on the announcement last night to renew their calls for an outright ban. The UK’s four child commissioners last month demanded a total ban on any form of smacking, insisting there was was ‘no room for compromise’ on the issue. But polls of parents have shown that two-thirds support smacking as a punishment if necessary. And critics regard an outright ban as an unwarranted intrusion into family life.

The Tory spokesman on children-Tim Loughton, said: ‘Even though this issue was debated barely three ago, Labour ministers cannot resist meddling in how parents look after their children. ‘Bringing up children is a big enough challenge already without opening up this can of worms, which is all about the nanny state rather than trusting parents.’ But Rob Williams, chief executive of campaign body 11 MILLION, said: ‘Children and young people in England should have the same right to protection under the law on common assault as that afforded to adults – there is no good reason why children are the only people in the UK who can still be hit.’

Read the entire article here. That last line get's me. It shows just how out of touch the far left are with psychological realities and just how arrogant they are in their own superiority. Thomas Sowell did a good examination of this phenomenon not long ago. At any rate, here are a few of the comments to this article that reaffirm that the average Brit has his or her head screwed on much tighter then the average leftist pol across the pond:

Comments

. . . Oh for heavens' sake - it's time to lift the ban completely! We have to stop 'namby-pambying' children and get some order into their lives. If we get some discipline back into this country then maybe - just maybe - we'll be able to walk safely on our streets again.- Maggie G, West London

. . . Where will it all end? Of course we have to protect our children but a smack as opposed to a smacking certainly gains the child's attention. I despair that this PC, 'yuman rights', gutless government will move on to banning verbal chastisement as well. Discipline, respect and good manners have all but disappeared under Blair. Here is a revolutionary idea, use the review to seek out ways to persuade and educate errant parents to take responsibility for their children.- John, East Sussex, UK

What a load of rubbish, once again the nanny state goes mad. We are now breeding a generation of brats with no way to discipline them. I was smacked in my younger years, I didn't like it so I behaved. I treated my own children the same and they were well behaved and I could take them anywhere with no fear. Smacking is only one method of punishment and should be used only occasionally when other methods have failed.- Barry Faulkner, Paphos, Cyprus

Here we go again - more government interference in family life. You'd think that, given the appalling behaviour we now witness amongst the young, it would have learnt some common sense. Despite the fact that at least 80% of parents believe a smack in the right circumstances perfectly justified, the government's attitude is, once again, stuff you, you'll do what we want. When we were bringing up our son he got a damned good smack when he deserved it and, although that didn't occur very often, I know that it served its purpose and he was the better for it. Many of those who advocate banning smacking have monsters for children - I know as I had several friends in that category and I refused to have them in my house if they wanted to bring their brats with them. It's a pity that corporal punishment isn't also still available - pain when inflicted for the correct reasons like violence and wanton cruelty is an extremely effective antidote despite what the do-gooders spout.- James Danvers, London

If a child thinks that a smack is the ultimate punishment you don't have to be forceful. My dad use to put his hand over my hand and smack his instead of mine and I still wept as though he'd really hurt me! Threatening a child with a smack is more psychological than anything.- Jo, Newark-on-Trent

You are never going to stop it. Passing laws is not productive. Is education not the way forward? Educating an adult not to loose their temper but ensuring the punishment fits the ‘crime’ the child has committed.- Roger, London

Every species of sentient creature physically chastises its young to teach them what is and is not acceptable or safe behaviour, but not to do them harm. This is clearly observable in nature from your domestic cat with her kittens to the great apes and dolphins and whales in the wild. Why should human offspring be regarded a different? I understand that the lawless among us will abuse their children regardless of what the law says, so why don't the anti-smacking campaigners? No wonder crime is ever-rising, as kids with no fear of punishment are feral. Sow the wind and reap the whirlwind if we let these misguided do-gooders overturn millennia of kind and loving child-rearing practice.- Denise, Caerphilly, UK

Will ALL parents be consulted or only those that concur with the government and so called "professionals"?- Dab, Cambs England

Oh dear, something else that this joke of a government simply MUST ruin.Is there nothing they won't break in their non-stop arrogance?- Dino Fancellu, Epsom, Surrey

As a result of this softly softly approach to childrearing, children are now becoming badly behaved little brats who can do no wrong. End this big brother government now!- Isabel, Buckinghamshire

Children already believe they are untouchable and that is why we have feral gangs of them running around creating havoc. By removing the only sanction a parent has to chastise a child it can only get worse.- Lickyalips, Richmond, Surrey

The Nanny State has already told us that we can't teach children right from wrong - the complete takeover of our offspring isn't very far away now. God help the country.- Olderbird, Northants

. . . Spare the rod and spoil the child was never more true than now. Just wander through any shopping centre to see the results of undiciplined child rearing. No-one advocates the beating of children, but a certain amount of physical discipline can do nothing but good. Just look at the state of discipline in our schools since the little darlings were exempt from caning.- Kenneth, London

Just ignore anything Nu Labour and the EU comes out with. Both organisations are discredited and will soon be replaced.- Andrew Murray, London, UK

Looks like many more good parents are to become law-breakers. The PC Brigade must be outed and banned.- Exessayer, Marbella Spain

. . . So a majority of people are against the ban. That means it will become law.- Donald Merritt, Hertfordshire England

The Democrats Prepare To Pay Back Far Left Enviromentalists

2007-06-15T20:51:00.000-04:00

It is utter insanity that we do not do far more to end our dependence on foreign oil and reduce the costs of energy. In any sane world, we would be drilling for oil in Alaska and in the Gulf of Mexico, and we would be fast tracking the creation of new atomic power plants. Additionally, we would be developing new refineries to lower the cost of gas even as we seek alternative fuels. Yet every attempt to do any of these things is invariably fought tooth and nail by far left radical environmentalists opposed to almost any human development. Their detrimental effect on America is very high indeed - and, at times, devastating. For example, it is quite possible that lawsuits brought by environmentalists against the Corps of Engineers in the 1970's were causitive factors in the break of New Orleans' levees in the aftermath of Katrina.

One of radical environmentalists favorite tools for opposing development has been litigation over the 1970 Endangered Species Act, an Act has created more then a fair bit of tension between government regulation and the rights of private property owners. At its best, the Act has been used to protect and repropogate several important species that were near extinction, such as wolves. At its worst, the Act has been regularly manipulated as a tool by far left environmentalists to tie up private property rights and prevent construction, logging or any of a host of other human endeavors.

Other then litigation, radical environmentalists have also done two other things very well. That would be lobbying and raising money for Democrats who will champion their special interests in Congress. And now, with the Democrats in controll of Congress, it is payback time for their support, just like it was not too long ago with big labor. Democrats showed then that they are quite willing to sacrifice the traditional rights of Americans to payback their special interest supporters. And now, in paying back the far left radical environmentalists, that means a significiant attack on private property rights as well as hindering any property use for the creation of energy. The WSJ has this story of the unholy alliance of our nation's largest environmental groups and the Democrats who have allowed the environmentalists to oversee the House's pending energy legislation:

. . . That is, if "energy" is the right word for West Virginia Rep. Nick Rahall's green-payoff of a bill. Ostensibly the legislation is a rollback of any energy production advances of recent years. But also tucked deep in its heart is an extraordinary new tool to allow environmentalists to lock up private property across the country. Bill presented; bill paid.

Like union and trial-bar groups, the extreme environmental community forked over a hefty wad of cash last year to help put Democrats in the majority, as well as to keep key environmental allies in their seats. But they also went the extra mile, singling out Republicans viewed as most ideologically hostile to liberal green goals and targeting them in campaigns. Most Wanted was former House Resources Committee Chairman Richard Pombo.

The Californian was an environmental innovator, one reason he leapfrogged past far more senior members of the Resources Committee to take its helm in 2003. His subsequent successes lay in getting rural-state Democrats to come along with pioneering overhauls of outdated, 1970s-style environmental policy--from the Healthy Forests Act to reform of the Endangered Species Act and public-lands drilling. Those victories, and Mr. Pombo's commitment to property rights, enraged coast-state Democrats and environmental groups, who viewed him as slightly less progressive than Attila the Hun.

Their fury was unleashed in last year's campaign. By some estimates, a half-dozen environmental groups spent north of $3 million to get Mr. Pombo sacked. Defenders of Wildlife opened an office in his Stockton district, staffed with a dozen people, for that purpose. Since most of Mr. Pombo's constituents admired him for his environmental work, their tactic was character assassination. The Defenders of Wildlife Action Fund (a 527) sent out mailings with the jaw-dropping suggestion that since Mr. Pombo didn't hold a hearing about supposed abuses in the Marianas Islands (a U.S. territory) that he supported "forced abortion," "child prostitution" and "sweatshop labor." Nowhere was the word "environment" even mentioned.

The smear campaign worked. Mr. Pombo was ousted, along with other key environmentalist targets, . . . The broader Democratic victory slipped the Resources chairmanship to Mr. Rahall, who may hail from rural West Virginia, but votes like a resurrected Rachel Carson. (Last year he earned a 92% voting score from the League of Conservation Voters, which takes effort.) With his most worthy ideological opponents banished, he's been largely free to pursue a pure green agenda, handing out goodies to the environmental crew that helped get him his job.

But first, housekeeping. In a little semantic poke to their opponents, Democrats quickly changed the title of Mr. Rahall's group to the Natural Resources Committee. This was accompanied by the heave-ho of moderate Democrats who had signed on to Mr. Pombo's reform agenda. .

They were replaced with better spawn of Mother Earth, including Lois Capps (California), Patrick Kennedy (Rhode Island) and John Sarbanes (Maryland). Mr. Rahall also sprinkled staff jobs on greens, including from groups active in the 2006 campaign. Two of three senior policy advisers hail from Defenders of Wildlife and the Forest Service Employees for Environmental Ethics; others come from the Wilderness Society and the Sierra Club.

These are the folks who helped write the "energy" bill that passed committee this week. Broadly, the bill fulfills one big ambition of environmental groups in recent years: a rollback of any smarter use of public (or even private) lands for energy use. Gone are previous gains for more drilling, more refineries, more transmission lines. But the big prize was an unprecedented new power allowing green groups to micromanage U.S. lands. That section creates "a new national policy on wildlife and global warming." It would require the Secretary of the Interior to "assist" species in adapting to global warming, as well as "protect, acquire and restore habitat" that is "vulnerable" to climate change. This is the Endangered Species Act on steroids. At least under today's (albeit dysfunctional) species act, outside groups must provide evidence a species is dwindling in order for the government to step in. This law would have no such requirements. Since green groups will argue that every species is vulnerable to climate change, the government will be obliged to manage every acre containing a bird, bee or flower.

It's a green dream come true, carte blanche to promulgate endless regulations barring tree-cutting, house-building, water-damming, snowmobile-riding, waterskiing, garden-planting, or any other human activity. The section is vague ("protect," "assist," "restore") precisely so as to leave the door open to practically anything. In theory, your friendly Fish & Wildlife representative could even command you to start applying sunblock to your resident chipmunks' noses.

The draft of Mr. Rahall's bill was greeted by a glowing letter from 13 environmental outfits--EarthJustice, Environmental Defense, American Rivers, the usual crew--voicing their "strong support" for the legislation. As they might, since it appears they wrote it. A May 29 letter from Defenders of the Wildlife Executive Vice President Jamie Rappaport Clark--President Clinton's onetime wilderness guru--crowed that her group "worked with committee and congressional staff as they developed" the new global warming wildlife program. She also extols the big bucks that will flow to federal and state wildlife agencies as a result of that global warming initiative.

Mr. Rahall's bill still has a long way to go. Other sections of an energy policy are still mired in the House; the Senate has yet to weigh in; and President Bush, with any luck, will veto any legislation that grants a freeze of every dirt clod in America--publicly or privately owned. Still, when it comes to rewarding their friends in the green community, don't blame House Democrats for not trying.

Read the entire article here. As always, I stand in amazement at what has happened to the Democratic Party since World War II - and their potential for doing mortal damage to our country.

Unbelievable

2007-06-14T19:13:00.000-04:00

Paul Potts, a salesman from Wales, was shown in this Youtube video on FoxNews tonight. Its of his performance on the Britain's Got Talent show. I had to download it and share. This man's singing is powerful and moving to a degree that I have observed in only a handful of musicians and vocalists throughout my life. Whatever else may happen, I think Paul's career as a cell phone salesman is going to come to a swift end. Do enjoy this.

Give "Em Surrender Harry's War - On The Surge & General Petraeus

2007-06-14T11:38:00.000-04:00

Could there be a more odious individual then Harry Reid, supreme Surrendocrat in the Senate. Reid and Pelosi both led their party's charge against the surge before it even began in February. On the two occaisions of notable terrorist acts since February, Harry Reid immediately tried to capitalize by declaring the surge a "failure." But Harry Reid does not end there in his effort to undermine the war. He and his fellow Surrendocrats have started a campaign to preempt anything General Petraeus might say about Iraq by claiming that General Petraeus cannot be trusted to tell the truth. And now, just as all troops are on the ground and the surge is beginning in earnest, Reid goes over the top yet again in his effort to undermine the war in Iraq by calling General Petraeus and General Pace "incompetent:"

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid called Marine Gen. Peter Pace, the outgoing chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, "incompetent" during an interview Tuesday with a group of liberal bloggers, a comment that was never reported.

Reid made similar disparaging remarks about Army Gen. David Petraeus, the top U.S. commander in Iraq, said several sources familiar with the interview.

This is but the latest example of how Reid, under pressure from liberal activists to do more to stop the war, is going on the attack against President Bush and his military leaders in anticipation of a September showdown to end U.S. involvement in Iraq, according to Democratic senators and aides.

Reid, who was bashed by Republicans for suggesting earlier this year that the Iraq war was "lost," is lashing out at top commanders while putting the finishing touches on a plan to force a series of votes on Iraq designed exclusively to make Republicans up for reelection in 2008 go on record in favor of continuing an unpopular war.

Reid, the senators and aides said, does not expect any of the Iraq measures to pass but hopes the effort will drive a deep enough wedge between wavering Republicans and Bush that, by September, Republican senators will break with the president and help end the war.

Read the entire story here. Make no mistake, our own far left led by Pelosi and Reid, al Qaeda and Iran, are all leading the war against the surge. Yet moderates and conservatives are all but silent. It is mindboggling in its insanity. Moderate and Conservative leaders, please find a broadcast microphone and repeat after me:

Its obvious at this point that the terrorists of al Qaeda, the terror supporting state of Iran and our own Democratic Congressional leaders Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi all share precisely the same motivation. They all want to portray the surge as a failure and have America surrender in Iraq. Al Qaeda in Iraq wants to destroy America. Iran wants America weakened and out of the Middle East so that they can exapand their theocracy. As to Hary Reid and Nancy Pelosi, they want the surge to fail so that they can get political power. Reid and Pelosi are quite willing to sacrifice our long term national interests for their own short term political gain.
Harry Reid has criticized President Bush, claiming that our President is asking America for a blank check to finish the war in Iraq and leave behind a stable democracy in the Middle East. But Harry Reid is also asking for a blank check - a much larger one, in fact. Harry Reid is asking America for a blank check to pay the costs that will ensue to our nation, our national security and our foreign policy if we surrender and retreat from Iraq in the face of attacks by al Qaeda and Iran. Every act has costs. But Harry Reid never addresses the costs of his surrender plan. He doesn't because the only upside is Harry Reid and the Democrats getting political power in 2008. As to the cost of the blank check for his surender plan, that cost will most assuredly make the cost of stabilizing Iraq look like chump change. Harry Reid is fine with that, just so long as no one realizes that truth until after the 2008 elections.

Iraq, Successes of the Surge, Iranian Acts of War & Balanced Reporting From the USA Today

2007-06-14T08:52:00.000-04:00

My hats off to the USA Today for providing us with a balanced picture of the situation in Iraq. And the news is that the surge is making signficant progress despite efforts to derail it by al Qaeda in Iraq, Iran, and Congressional Democrats. This reporting could not be more timely, coming as it is on the heels of the utterly craven performance yesterday by Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi to preemptively claim defeat and surrender, trying to capitalize on a success by terrorists in bombing of the Samarra Mosque. Their desire for surrender at all costs in order to achieve partisan political gain could not be more transparent. Nor could their message, that the surge "has failed," be further from the truth:

When Gen. David Petraeus drives through the streets of Iraq's capital, he sees "astonishing signs of normalcy" in half, perhaps two-thirds of Baghdad.

"I'm talking about professional soccer leagues with real grass field stadiums, several amusement parks — big ones, markets that are very vibrant," says Petraeus, commander of the roughly 150,000 U.S. troops in Iraq. The scenes provide a sign that the new strategy in Iraq is working, although many problems remain, he told USA TODAY in an interview Wednesday.

Five months after President Bush ordered an increase of 20,000 U.S. troops in Iraq, data suggest that sectarian violence in Baghdad has declined. Other tentative signs of progress have included a rise in Iraqi army enlistments and some quality-of-life improvements such as fewer electricity blackouts in the capital.

. . . Meanwhile, U.S. commanders have urged the American public not to pass judgment on the plan's effectiveness until after all U.S. troops are fully deployed. That is due to happen Friday. In September, Petraeus and U.S. Ambassador Ryan Crocker are to present a report on the plan's effectiveness to leaders in Washington.

Petraeus did not specifically say what subjects he might address in his evaluation. Here is a look at some of the changes in Iraq since February.

Possible signs of progress

•Iraq's army.

The Iraqi army currently has 152,500 trained and equipped soldiers, nearly 20,000 more troops than were on the rosters in January, according to the U.S. State Department. Another 20,000 soldiers will be added to the ranks this year, the U.S. military says.

The Army now has its own Iraqi-run basic training and leadership schools. "The Iraqi army has, in general, done quite well in the face of some really serious challenges," Petraeus says. "In certain areas it really is very heartening to see what it has done."

•Anbar province.

This area in the heart of the Sunni Triangle has been held up by the U.S. military as a model for Iraq. "The progress in Anbar has actually been breathtaking," Petraeus says.

Commanders credit much of the success to the U.S. military's decision to arm, train and organize Sunni provincial militias that have turned against al-Qaeda militants operating in the area.

"If you've got folks who say, 'Hey, this is my hometown, and I'm tired of the violence and if you simply train and equip me, I'll protect my hometown.' We ought to jump on that like a duck on a June bug," says Maj. Gen. Rick Lynch, commander of the 3rd Infantry Division.

Commanders elsewhere in Iraq are studying lessons that can be learned from Anbar, although Petraeus said that each area of Iraq has "unique circumstances." Anbar is mostly Sunni and does not have the volatile sectarian mix that stokes violence in other parts of the country.

•Sectarian violence.

The number of unidentified bodies found in Baghdad — an indicator of sectarian violence between Sunni and Shiite Muslims — dropped from a high of 1,782 in October to 411 in April, according to an Interior Ministry official who declined to be named because he is not authorized to speak to the media.

The body count spiked to 726 in May. So far this month, the numbers are again on a "downward trend," Petraeus says. Although the bombing Wednesday of a major Shiite shrine in Samarra raises the risk of a new outbreak of sectarian violence, he says.

Areas of concern

• U.S. casualties. As U.S. forces spread deeper into insurgent-held territories, they are paying the price in blood. At least 230 soldiers were killed in April and May, the highest two-month death toll since the war began. This month, at least 32 soldiers have been killed in Iraq.

Roadside bombs — improvised explosive devices — remain the No. 1 killer of U.S. troops. Sixty-five percent of May casualties were caused by IEDs, up from 32% in February, according to a study by the Brookings Institution, a Washington think tank.

• Iraqi police. Iraq's 135,000-strong police force continues to be plagued with problems, U.S. commanders say. Up to 70% of Iraqi police leaders have been replaced because they had ties to sectarian violence, Petraeus says.

About 5,000 police deserted the force in the 18 months before January, Lt. Gen. Martin Dempsey said at a Pentagon news conference Wednesday. Another 7,000 or 8,000 police officers are unaccounted for.

"I have great concerns about the police," Lynch says. "There are large areas in (central Iraq) where there are no police. And in areas where we do have police, we have corrupt police."

• Political unity. Al-Maliki's government has been unable to push any major initiatives through Iraq's parliament, including a law on how to share the country's oil revenues.

"I think everyone, including the government of Iraq, is impatient with the rate of progress in a variety of different areas," Petraeus says. "They are trying to do it in a reasonably democratic way … in a government that is comprised of representatives from ethno-sectarian interests."

Read the entire story here. The USA today also had a Q&A with General Petraeus addressing both daily Iranian acts of war and the situation with Sadr and his militia:

Q: What is the current influence (in Iraq) from Iran?

A: The Iranian influence has been very, very harmful to Iraq. There is absolutely no question that Iranians are funding, arming, training, and even in some cases, directing the activities of extremists and militia elements.

It's more than disappointing given that one would think Iran would want the first Arab-Shiite state to succeed rather than wanting apparently to contribute to continued instability and serious security challenges.

The people they are arming are very, very serious thugs. Among them certainly are those who kidnapped the (five) British civilians the other day.

Q: What's your assessment of the Iraqi government's role in the military "surge?" Are they a help or a hindrance?

A: If you drive around Baghdad, you'll find astonishing signs of normalcy in perhaps half to two-thirds of the city. … In fact, the car bomb numbers have come down fairly steadily as well until just a couple of days ago, and we'll see if we can get those coming down again. …

There's a real vibrancy in certain parts of Iraq, and in others obviously there is continued fighting and a sectarian cycle of violence underway. Obviously, there is damage, a need to … help them stitch back the fabric of society that was torn during the height of the sectarian violence.

Q: (Shiite cleric) Muqtada al-Sadr has been a thorn in your side. … Do you want to arrest him? Why or why not?

A: Well, actually, first of all I'd like to say that Muqtada al-Sadr issued a very constructive statement today in the wake of the Samarra attack calling for mourning for several days and calling for restraint. That continues the line of messages that he has put out since his return from Iran a couple weeks ago in which he has ordered his followers not to attack Sunnis (or) other Iraqis, not to attack mosques and shrines. …

I think it's really still early in the day after his return to see what he and his movement will do. Whether their role will be a constructive one or whether some of his followers will resume sectarian attacks, shooting rockets at the International Zone, attack our soldiers with IEDs (improvised explosive devices) and so forth. That still has happened. Although we have seen some signs that perhaps some of his followers have taken a knee.

Read the rest of the story here. And, given that this is the first balanced report from Iraq by a MSM outlet that I can recall in recent memory, may I suggest supporting the USA Tody. At least sign up for the free online membership.

(Big H/T Steve Halter)

Britain Falling

2007-06-14T07:58:00.000-04:00

American commentator Cal Thomas opines this morning that the end result of 60 years of hard left multiculturalism, social experimentation, socialist government policy and EU / British immigration policy is now culminating in the suicide of Britain. I can't say that I disagree. Britain's domestic policies and politics have become particularly indefensible as it has become more and more obvious that there is an existential threat posed to the UK by its immigration policy and its infestation by Wahhabi / Salafi Islamists. While no one is more appreciative then I of Tony Blair as a true ally of the U.S., from this side of the pond at least, looking at British domestic politics, it seems that he has done nothing to stem the suicidal tide set in motion by the UK's leaders early in the past century. To the contrary, he appears to have hastened it:

There are two ways to destroy a nation. One is from without by an invading military force. The other is from within when the people of the nation no longer embrace and promote the history, language and culture that brought it to prominence and power. Britain has chosen the second option, which is national suicide.

In addition to its indefensible immigration policy, which is rapidly diluting British culture, the nation's public schools are giving up classical teaching in history, science and English literature in favor of trendy things to make the subject matter more "popular." It isn't working. Students increasingly find the new curriculum as unpalatable as school lunches.

According to the British think tank, Civitas, no major subject area has escaped the blight of political interference. The Civitas report is called "The Corruption of the Curriculum." It says history classes teach from speeches by Osama bin Laden and what Arab media say about Sept. 11 with no balancing material from American sources. "History has become so divorced from facts and chronology that pupils might learn the new Œskills and perspectives' through a work of fiction, such as ŒLord of the Rings,'" says the report.

Science classes are dominated by debates over abortion, teaching about genetic engineering and the use of nuclear power, rather than emphasizing laboratory work. In English, the pursuit of gender and racial equality has led an exam board to produce a list of modern poems from everywhere but England and Wales, where many of the greatest writers were born. The English literature exam features 32 contemporary poems and only 16 poems written prior to 1914. Exam candidates must choose two about which to write, being careful to select one from each gender (what no gay or transgender writers?).

The Civitas report says, "The traditional subject areas have been hijacked to promote fashionable causes; teachers are expected to help to achieve the government's social goals instead of imparting a body of academic knowledge to their students."

The Daily Telegraph reports on another study which shows that attempts to make science more popular with the culturally trendy has had the opposite effect, "with pupils less interested in the subject and less keen to pursue it than they were under the previous, more fact-based lessons."

Private schools continue to teach the old subjects in the traditional manner and that is why what some are calling "educational apartheid" is becoming more obvious and a major concern. The study of science classes concludes that future scientists will be even more likely to come from these independent, or private schools, because the public school courses will leave state school students ill-equipped for further study.

A nation that lacks sufficient confidence to teach the next generation its own history, culture and even science is a nation that is unlikely to mobilize the national will to resist an invading enemy.

My own theory is that prosperity has a lot to do with this jettisoning of the past. When a nation focuses on profits, instead of prophets, and sexual pleasure instead of fidelity and virtue, it dooms itself to eventual extinction. . . .

Read the entire story here. I am an anglophile with a tremendous appreciation for the rich history of Britain and all of the good that it has done throughout the world. Britain is the mother of modern capitalism and democracy. Everywhere that Britain left its footprint the deepest during the age of empire, what the Brits left in their wake were the foundations of capitalism, a solid educational system, an equally solid legal system, and democracy. Were you find nations today that are the most free and who enjoy the highest standard of living, you will often find the footprint of Britain. The small island nation of Britain has been the great engine of historical development over the past millenium, really.

To my own thinking, it is the praetorian and avant garde left encapsulated by the BBC, that has led this charge to the cliff. But Britain's end is far from writ in stone. I still believe that, in its darkest hour, the sons and daughters of Chruchill, Nelson, Wellington, Adam Smith, William of Normandy and countless other legends of history will take back their country.

Finally, Iran Put On The Spot For Weapons Smuggling

2007-06-14T01:03:00.000-04:00

The U.S. government has, for the past year, inexplicably refused to link the highest echelons of Iran's theocracy to the arming, training and funding of proxies in Iraq, and the smuggling of weapons to the Taliban. That seems to have ended today, at least in as much as to the smuggling of weapons to the Taliban in Afghanistan. Today, Secretary of Defense Gates laid responsibility for the smuggling at the feet of the mad mullahs. This from the Washington Times:

Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates tied Iran's government to large shipments of weapons to the Taliban in Afghanistan and said yesterday that such quantities were unlikely without Tehran's knowledge.

Mr. Gates' comments, following accusations by a State Department official, were the strongest yet by a Cabinet secretary about Iran's support of the terrorist group in Afghanistan.

Basing his conclusions on new intelligence, Mr. Gates said "given the quantities [of weapons] that we're seeing, it is difficult to believe that it is associated with smuggling or the drug business or that it's taking place without the knowledge of the Iranian government."

He said that the latest information indicates a "fairly substantial flow of weapons" is crossing into Afghanistan.

Undersecretary of State R. Nicholas Burns told CNN yesterday that "there's irrefutable evidence the Iranians are now doing this."

"It's certainly coming from the government of Iran," he said. "It's coming from the Iranian Revolutionary Guard corps command, which is a basic unit of the Iranian government."

State Department spokesman Sean McCormack told reporters "it certainly is hard to believe that the Iranian government isn't involved in some way, shape or form in this." . . .

Read the entire story here. Kind of like alcoholism, the first step towards making Iran pay a price for their involvment is to acknowledge their role. Iran's daily acts of war have been going on for some time and have cost the lives of numerous U.S. soldiers as well as innocent Iraqis. There needs to be an appropriate military response.

A Salute To Tom Lantos

2007-06-14T00:31:00.000-04:00

Democratic Congressman Tom Lantos wins the line of the day award. This is from his remarks at the dedication of a monument to victims of communism:

Lantos said "I am so glad that the era of Jacques Chirac and Chancellor Schroeder in Germany is now gone" He added that, when the United States asked Schroeder to support its decision to go to war in Iraq "he told us where to go. I referred to him as a political prostitute, now that he's taking big checks from (Russian President Vladimir) Putin. But the sex workers in my district objected, so I will no longer use that phrase."

I salute Congressman Lantos both for protecting the higher social caliber of prostitutes and for his his assessment of both Chirac and Schroeder, two of the worst leaders produced by Europe since WWII. Lantos also had other remarks:

Lantos said Chirac "should go down to the Normandy beaches. He should see those endless rows of white marble crosses and stars of David representing young Americans who gave their lives for the freedom of France."

He said under the successors of Schroeder and Chirac, Angela Merkel in Germany and Nicolas Sarkozy in France, relations with the United States "will take a very positive turn"

Lantos was born in Budapest, Hungary, and sent to a Nazi labor camp when he was 16. He is the only survivor of the Holocaust ever to have served in Congress.

Read the entire story here.

Surrendocrats At It Again; Who Will Respond?

2007-06-13T23:46:00.000-04:00

General Petraeus has said that he needs several months to ascertain how well the surge is succeeding. But not those masters of military planning and strategy, Give 'Em Surrender Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi. With precisely zero days of military experience between them, yet years of partisan political experience, they feel that they are qualified to pronounce judgment on the surge now. And yet again, they are taking the opportunity to preemptively announce the surge failed presented by a successful operation by terrorists in Iraq. When I wrote in my post several hours ago that four entities had the motivation to destroy the Samarra Mosque and reignite the move towards a civil war - and I included "Congressional Democrats" among the list - I was not joking or being cynical. In Iraq, there has been no violence yet as a result of the successful terrorist action. Thus, the only militant entity thus far to capitalize on the bombing are Congressional Democrats led by Reid and Pelosi:

Top US congressional Democrats bluntly told President George W. Bush Wednesday that his Iraq troop "surge" policy was a failure.

Senate Majority leader Harry Reid and House of Representatives Speaker Nancy Pelosi challenged the president over Iraq by sending him a letter, ahead of a White House meeting later on Wednesday.

"As many had forseen, the escalation has failed to produce the intended results," the two leaders wrote.

"The increase in US forces has had little impact in curbing the violence or fostering political reconciliation.

"It has not enhanced Americas national security. The unsettling reality is that instances of violence against Iraqis remain high and attacks on US forces have increased.

"In fact, the last two months of the war were the deadliest to date for US troops.

The letter appeared to preview a fresh showdown over Iraq between anti-war Democrats and the president, just a few weeks after Bush forced his foes to strip troop withdrawal timelines from a 100 billion dollar emergency war budget.

It also came a few days after the US military mourned its 3,500th soldier killed in action in Iraq.

Pelosi and Reid told Bush in the letter that they planned to send him new legislation to "limit the US mission in Iraq, begin the phased redeployment of US forces, and bring the war to a responsible end."

On Tuesday, Reid said that Senate Democrats would attach troop withdrawal deadlines to a Defense Department Authorization bill, due to be debated within weeks. . . .

Read the entire story here. It would seem that the fact Petraues warned that we would suffer higher US casualties as we became more agressive and moved into previously unchallenged areas is meaningless to the Surrendocrats except in as much as to how it can be twisted. There is no mention of the sectarian killings being halved, nor of the successes in Anbar Province. Reid and Pelosi are worthless partisan animals with not an ounce of patriotism nor any care for the consequences of their actions beyond the acquisition of raw political power. Will anyone in the MSM begin asking these Surrendocrats what they expect the cost to be of leaving Iraq to be fought over and divided by Iran, al Qaeda and Turkey at a minimum? Will any Conservative or moderate who has the courage of his principals respond to this partisan posturing. This is national suicide.

Fred, Ron & The Kingfish

2007-06-13T12:32:00.000-04:00

There is some very good news for Fred Thompson coming out of the polls. According to the latest LA Times/Bloomberg poll and a Rasmussen poll, Fred is now in a statistical dead heat for the lead in the Republican primaries with Rudy Giuliani. This is an amazing feat given that Fred has not yet entered the race.

Fred is enjoying immense popularity in large part because he is the closest thing to a Reagan conservative in - or soon to be in - the Republican field. And to add to his mystique, Fred also enjoys some obvious similarities to Ronald Reagan. Like Reagan, Fred is a successful actor with exceptional communication skills. Indeed, Fred quite often comes across with the same down home clarity and optimism that was the hallmark of Reagan. And like Reagan, Fred has been consistent in sounding the themes of social conservativism, small government and a strong national defense. These are the things that make the hearts of the conservative base go all a-twitter. And they are the same things that make Democrats pop awake at 3 a.m., covered in sweat and screaming.

Thus, it is no suprise that Democrats have already begun penning the poison. Left wing pundit Richard Cohen recently wrote such a missive, positing that Fred is no Reagan. Cohen's rather unusual arguments strongly suggest that the left is going to have a lot of trouble attacking Fred.

Cohen's first argument - an argument that could only arise out of the far left - is that Fred is psychologically far too normal to be President. According to Cohen, "the presidency that Thompson now seeks is not won by the normal, the average, the ordinary, but by people fueled by an explosive combination of overriding ambition and charming megalomania." While the crop of Democratics seeking the presidency all seem to satisfy Cohen's psychological prerequisite, Fred does not. But for some strange reason, I do not think that most people outside of the very hard left will see Fred Thompson's psychological equilibrium as a disqualifying factor.

In another argument, Cohen takes Fred Thompson to task because, during Fred's eight years as a Senator from Tennessee, Fred did not propose a bevy of new laws to which his name would be attached. This is yet another criticism that could only come from the far left. What was it that Reagen said about the left's proclivity for legislation? “If it moves, tax it. If it keeps moving, regulate it. And if it stops moving, subsidize it.” It would seem Fred, in doing none of the above, went a ways towards establishing his credentials as a small government conservative.

If the far left keeps up attacks like these on Fred Thompson, and if as seems likely Fred maintains the "big mo" that now has him statistically tied for the lead in the polls with Giuliani, Fred may shortly find himself in a very enviable position indeed. In fact, he may find himself in that position once occupied by the "Kingfish," Huey Long, who opined shortly before an election, "the only way I can lose is if they find me in bed with a dead girl or a live boy." Let's hope Fred stays out of the bed - and starts running.

-- And if you missed it, here is Fred on The Tonight Show last night

(H/T Hillbilly Politics)

The Real Palestinian Tragedy

2007-06-13T11:45:00.000-04:00

It is refreshing to hear the occasional Arab voice in the wilderness decrying the real tragedy of the Palestinian people - the gross manipulation of the Palestinians by other Middle East nations. One of the most egrigous aspects of that manipulation is the horrid conditions in which Palestians reside outside of Gaza, the West Bank or Israel. The squalor is quietly acknowledged as part of the effort by Middle Eastern governments to use the plight of these displaced Palestinians against Israel. This from Abdul Rahman Al-Rashed in London's Arabic newspaper, Asharq Al-Awsat:

. . . Regarded by some as a temporary issue, the tragedy of the Palestinians is rarely presented to the Arab and international public opinion through the media or during political occasions. Even some Arabs and Palestinians intentionally turn a blind eye to the issue so as not to expose abuses. What is happening in Lebanon's Nahr al Bared camp today is just one such example where battles have raised an overwhelming number of questions: who are these people? How long have they lived in the camp and how? What are their rights? The answers can be found on the UNRWA's website. Tens of thousands of people crammed in undignified houses, where many of them were born and have lived for five decades.

Some Arab countries “hosting” refugees ban them from leaving [camps], from occupying a large number of positions and deny them any other legal rights. Some of them have to jump over walls and sneak out to complete their chores or to breathe and experience the outside world. One can imagine these randomly and poorly built houses during the winter chill and sweltering heat of the summer among the sewage and insufficient services. It is a shame. How can we talk about the liberation of Palestine, which we simply associate with stolen land, a desecrated mosque and a powerful enemy, while we do not allow Palestinians to settle down, earn a living or travel like all other human beings?

Our insistence to lock the Palestinians in camps and treat them like animals in the name of preserving the issue is far worse a crime than Israel stealing land and causing the displacement of people. The 60 year-old camps only signify our inhumanity and double standards. Israel can claim that it treats the Palestinians better than their Arab brothers do. It gives citizenship to the Palestinians of 1948 as well as the right to work and the right to lead a somewhat normal life, although they are treated as second-class citizens. . .

Read the entire article here. Palestine today is in a civil war between the gangsters of Fatah and the radical Islamists of Hamas. For the seemingly few Palestians not already corrupted beyond hope by either side and who only desire a functioning society, they are in a lose-lose situation. There is a complete breakdown in morality and respect for the law necessary for a functioning society. And that all arises out of Middle East countries who have, for a century, actively nurtured and paid for this rot in a cynical attempt to use the Palestinians against Jews and the state of Israel. One must hope that there is a special place in hell reserved for those Saudis who have paid stipends to suicide bombers or who have funded the propoganda machines that tell pre-school children about the joys of murdering Israelis. This all leads to the incredible irony that the Palestians who have the highest standard of living and the most freedom in the Middle East are those who live in Israel.

(H/T Steve Halter)

The Costs of Freedom

2007-06-13T10:21:00.000-04:00

Freedom has costs. Those costs must be paid up front in blood and treasure if freedom is to be maintained. We have been fortunate to have a nation and leaders who both understood these fundamental truths and who had the wisdom, foresight and imagination to know when such costs had to be paid. We live in freedom today because of the blood and gold spent in dear cost by our forebearers.

That is a historical lesson that seems to be denied today by many of our citizens and leaders. Their failure of foresight and imagination to determine when such costs must be paid, or their craven denial of the necessity of such costs, can only have one of two consequences. Either it will end in a loss of freedom to others who desire to conquer, or it will end with a much higher cost in blood and treasure to be paid at a later date. Such is the message today of David Warren in an exception essay, "No Price Too HighFor Human Liberty."

. . . it would seem that [Bush] has failed to mobilize the American electorate behind the "Bush doctrine," as declared so eloquently in the months after the 9/11 attacks on New York and Washington; and failed even to mobilize the U.S. bureaucracy, which has consistently resisted direct presidential orders throughout both his terms, and in such cases as the CIA and State Department, often sabotaged them. His principal allies within the administration have been successfully demonized by America's media and entertainment industry, and most have been driven out of public life. So that one wonders if anything of the Bush doctrine -- that America will fight not only terrorists but the dictators who support them -- will survive his administration.

. . . Here are several statements made at the Prague conference, by leading pro-democracy dissidents from around the world, collected by Anne Bayefsky:

Natan Sharansky, of Israel: "Today there are dissidents in many different contexts but the underlying battle is the same -- freedom versus fear. We improve our influence by uniting as dissidents against totalitarian regimes."

Mudawi Ibrahim Adam, of Sudan: "U.N. handling of the Sudanese government has legitimized it regardless of the fact this government is killing its own people. Western states are sending the wrong message -- that democracy is primarily about elections, whereas it requires much more."

Garry Kasparov, of Russia: "Russia today is a police state masquerading as a democracy where elections are theatre. The problem is that the G8 treats Putin as an equal. ... Putin must be sent a message that he cannot act like an Alexander Lukashenko or Robert Mugabe and be treated like a democrat."

Saad Eddin Ibrahim, of Egypt: "We ask Western democracies to stop supporting dictatorships and the darkness of theocrats in the name of stability and continuity."

Bassam Eid, of Palestine: "The Arab world ... is not helped by the fact that the international community applies a double-standard to it -- refusing to insist that the society, including Palestinian society, must ready itself for democracy before handing millions to the security forces of autocracies."

George W. Bush, of USA: "Freedom can be resisted, and freedom can be delayed, but freedom cannot be denied."

This last is the only statement I'll contest. In my view, and my experience, freedom can be resisted, delayed, and denied, and moreover, it can be in decline, as it is in the West, where the nanny state grows insidiously and constantly -- regardless of who is elected to government -- with the expanding power of the self-appointed elites who control our legal systems, and regulatory regimes.

It is nice to say rhetorically that freedom will prevail, but we must realize that such statements apply to heaven and not to earth. For down here, civic freedom is invariably obtained at the cost of human blood and treasure. It is not obtained by negotiating with dictators, except from a position of invincible force, and then only when one is fully prepared to use it. The very argument used against the wisdom of invading Iraq -- that it costs blood and treasure -- is itself the signal of surrender.

Aristotle once wrote that the magnificent man "does not count the cost." He understood also the virtue of prudence, the need for calculation and tact. But prudence itself is not finally calculated in blood or treasure. In the words with which my own country, Canada, was once mobilized against the Hitler menace: "No price too high!"

There is no price too high for human liberty, and those who dispute this are, and deserve to be, slaves.

Read the entire story here. This article articulately sums up how I feel about the far left of this nation. They revel in a suicidal narcissim, seeking only political power. The fact that they now control the Democratic Party, driving its Congressional leaders and would-be presidential nominees into lemming-like lock step is a national tragedy. We are fighting two wars at present - the War on Terror and an internal war against far left forces who would destroy our nation through their embrace of fanatasy and their desire to do good - as they would define it. Failure to win both wars can only lead, at best, to the precipitous and long-term decline of our nation, and at worst, the very loss of our freedom as described by Mr. Warren.

(H/T Steve Halter)

Who & Why - A Second Bombing At The Samarra Mosque

2007-06-13T08:06:00.002-04:00

The downward spiral of sectarian violence in Iraq began in February 2006 with an al Qaeda in Iraq bombing of the Samarra Mosque, one of the holiest of Shiite shrines. It had long been the stated goal of al Qaeda to fan the flames of civil war, and with that bombing, they came close to succeeding. Repair work on the Mosque was planned, but never started.

In the aftermath of the February 2006 bombing, and as part of the Iraqi security plan, the mission to guard the Mosque was charged to an Iraqi Police Battalion. Nonetheless, this morning, two explosions at the base of the mosque brought down two of the minarets still standing from the original blast. Who did this and why did they do it are two questions with several possible answers. This from the Washington Post:

Early morning blasts Wednesday destroyed two minarets at the same Shiite shrine in Samarra where an attack last year demolished the mosque's gilded dome and plunged the country into a wave of deadly sectarian violence.

The 9 a.m. explosions at the revered Askariya shrine in Samarra, about 65 miles north of Baghdad, is the sort of event that could spark a spiral of retaliatory bloodshed. . . .

The Feb. 22, 2006 attack on the shrine -- often referred to as the Golden Mosque because of its brilliant golden dome -- was a seminal moment in the four-year Iraq war, sparking a vicious cycle of bloodshed that has never fully stopped. In the 16 months since, thousands of Iraqis -- and perhaps tens of thousands -- have been killed in Sunni-Shiite fighting.

. . . Fearing a backlash from the latest attack, the Iraqi government imposed an indefinite curfew across Baghdad starting 3 p.m. Wednesday. There were no immediate reports of retaliatory violence, and no reports that anyone was injured in the attack at the shrine.

"This is a terrorist attack that is aimed at inciting sectarian crisis, and it is the work of a foreign agenda whose aim is to stoke sectarian strife, instability and a collapse of the political process," said Hussein Al Musawi, spokesman for the Shiite Political Council, an umbrella group of Shiite political parties.

"There is an obvious failure on the part of the Iraqi security forces, and the multinationals, to guard these shrines and to deal the terrorists groups a blow, and to strike with an iron fist against the terrorists."

. . . In response to Wednesday's attack, the entire Iraqi security force responsible for guarding the mosque, the 3rd Battalion of the Salahaddin Province police, was detained for investigation, Iraqi law enforcement officials said. The collapse of the two minarets appeared to have been caused by explosive charges placed at their bases.

. . . After Wednesday's explosions, Iraqi security forces patrolled the city, firing in the air and announcing the curfew from loudspeakers mounted on jeeps. In Baghdad and elsewhere, Shiite mosques broadcast calls for demonstrations.

In a sign of the sectarian tensions quickly provoked by the incident, members of the Iraqi security forces, which are dominated by Shiites, yelled threats at Samarra residents, blaming them for the destruction of the mosque and threatening revenge. Some citizens, meanwhile, hurled remarks back, asking how anyone could destroy the minarets when the entire religious complex was being so carefully guarded by Iraqi security forces.

The mosque, one of the four most revered in Iraq, has been heavily guarded by Iraqi troops ever since the destruction of its gilded dome in the 2006 attack.

Radical Shiite cleric Muqtada al-Sadr called for peaceful demonstrations and reconciliation within Iraq's warring factions to mark the minarets' destruction. In a written statement, Sadr said Sunnis and Shiites should unite and declared that no Sunni Arab could have been responsible for the attack on the Shiite shrine.

He claimed that U.S. occupation forces bore responsibility for the blasts, though the precise nature of that alleged responsibility was not made clear.

"We declare a three-day mourning period . . . and shout Allahu Akbar (God is greater) from Sunni and Shiite mosques," Sadr said in the statement.

U.S. military spokesman Lt. Col. Christopher Garver said that U.S. forces were assisting the Iraqi government in responding to the attack and had provided a team to help assess the damage. Although there were U.S. troops in the region, he said, "The security for the shrine itself is an Iraqi responsibility." . . .

Read the entire storyhere. There are two possible motivations for this bombing.

The first is to reignite sectarian violence and to undo the significant gains made by the surge. Although it is clear that al Qaeda in Iraq carried out the initial attack, it is far less clear who carried out this second attack. Al Qaeda in Iraq, Moqtada al Sadr, Iran and Congressional Democrats all have a vested interest in seeing the surge fail, and it would not be beyond at least the first three to have conducted this bombing. Given that the battalion guarding the mosque is made up of Shiites, it seems likely either Sadr's militia or an Iranian proxy carried out this attack.

The second possible motivation is a false flag operation by Sadr to use the bombing as a means of establishing his bona fides as a national political figure looking out for the interests of Sunni and Shia alike. Given his quick response to the bombing and his calls for peace, this is plausible. If so, it would mark Sadr as having far more intelligence and nuance then I believe he actually possesses. That, or this could have been planned on his behalf for that purpose by his Iranian handlers if, as seems likely, Sadr is a tool of the Khomeinists at this point.

In either event, it just does not seem likely that, in the absence of vociferous rhetoric played out across Iraqi air waves, that this second attack against the still unrepaired Samarra mosque will draw anywhere near the same ire of the nation as was caused by the first attack. It bears watching carefully who attempts to capitalize on this bombing, how they do it and to what end. That may go a long way to telling us who are the true culprits.

Dennis On Harry

2007-06-12T17:10:00.000-04:00

Do enjoy Dennis Miller giving his opinion of Harry Reid:

I personally think that he lets Harry off far too lightly.

Harry Reid has been an incredibly destructive force in the War on Terror. His default position has to try and criticize and tear down whatever President Bush has proposed - assuming the polls suggest that doing so will increase the chance of Democrats gaining in political power with the next election. I think that a lot of the blood our soldiers will spill this summer can be directly laid at the hands of Reid, as well as Pelosi and Murtha. Harry Reid has clearly placed national security and America's place in the world secondary to political gain. He is an incredible hypocrite who is governed by polls and easilly manipulated by the far left fringe of the Democratic Party. In short, Harry Reid is an odious and unprinicpled individual who, in a sane world, would not be the Democrat's highest leader in the Senate. He would not be a Senator, and he is certainly not a leader. Indeed, his leadership skills being what they are, the only reason for anyone to follow Harry Reid is only out of sheer curiosity.

(H/T USA Partisan)

Al Jazeera - Radical Islam's Broadcast Mouthpiece

2007-06-12T15:33:00.000-04:00

It would seem the problems of agenda journalism infest MSM the world over. In the Middle East the al Jazeera network regualarly gives friendly coverage to the point of acting as "official spokesman and activist for fundamentalist groups." That is the charge in a column in the London daily Al-Sharq Al-Awsat by Egyptian columnist Diana Muqallid. She makes her charges in light of al Jazeera's coverage of the conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan, and al Jazeera's most recent coverage of the conflict between Lebanon and Fath al Islam, the Syrian and al Qaeda linked group currently fighting the Lebanese army inside Lebanon's Nahr al Bared Palestinian Refugee camp:

. . . On the fourth day of the battles around the Nahr Al-Bared refugee camp in northern Lebanon, the Al-Jazeera network opened its evening news with a preface, in which the announcer said that the story that was about to be broadcast included exclusive photos from inside the Palestinian refugee camp showing the scope of the killing and the extent of the 'human suffering' of the camp residents.

The footage that followed showed Fath Al-Islam fighters in their positions, firing at targets that clearly belonged to the Lebanese army. The footage showed not one sight reflecting the suffering of the Palestinian residents; the focus was on the armed fighters, who repeated over and over... statements such as 'satanic tyrants' and 'infidels,' as they exchanged information on the positions of their fighting 'brothers.'

Yet again, Al-Jazeera has not hesitated to play the role it played in Afghanistan, Iraq, and Palestine - that of official spokesman and activist for fundamentalist groups. It seems obvious that the Fath Al-Islam fighters were dealing with a 'friendly' camera, not with a journalistic camera. [This friendly
coverage of Fath Al-Islam] quickly created a connection between [Fath Al-Islam] - which accuses [others] of heresy and regularly carries out massacres and indiscriminate killing, and whose members blow themselves up - and the [Al-Jazeera] channel, which from its outset has ignited Islamic populism and whose influence is growing...

[Al-Jazeera] did not mention the fact that [this] group had slaughtered [Lebanese] soldiers in their sleep. [But] the most important point is that the [special] news flashes and news headlines about the ongoing shelling [of the refugee camp] by the [Lebanese] army never referred to the ongoing entrenchment of the Fath Al-Islam fighters among the residents, and to their shelling of aid and rescue convoys.

Concealing or ignoring the suffering of the Palestinian residents would be a black stain on any [political] body or media outlet, whether it be Lebanese or Arab. But extolling the Fath Al-Islam murderers, and making efforts to associate them with civilians, is first and foremost a crime against the Palestinian residents [of the camp], even more than it is a crime against Lebanon." . . .

Read the entire story here.

FBI Director Says Only Matter of Time Before Terrorists Acquire Nuclear Weapons; The MSM Buries The Warning

2007-06-12T04:28:00.000-04:00

A sizeable portion of the one billion Muslims in this world believe the United States and the West are enemies to be destroyed by any means. We know that a handful of these suicidal zealots can cause immense destruction. Thus, the nightmare scenario is that any of these terrorist organizations may gain access to nuclear weapons. And apparently, this nightmare scenario is inevitable. In remarks made yesterday before the Global Initiative to Combat Nuclear Terrorism, FBI Director Robert Mueller made the dire warning that it was "only a matter of time and economics before terrorists will be able to purchase nuclear weapons . . .":

. . . Mr. Mueller said federal authorities, working with their counterparts overseas, must secure loose nuclear material, share intelligence about those who wish to buy and sell such material, and stop those who do -- adding that by some estimates, there is enough highly enriched uranium in global stockpiles to construct thousands of nuclear weapons.

Mr. Mueller said the economics of supply and demand dictate that someone, somewhere will provide nuclear material to the highest bidder, and that material will end up in the hands of terrorists. He said the al Qaeda terrorist network has demonstrated a clear intent to acquire weapons of mass destruction, noting that Osama bin Laden sought to buy uranium in Sudan in 1993.

But, he said, al Qaeda is not the only concern, adding that the United States faces threats from other terrorist cells around the world and from homegrown terrorists not affiliated with al Qaeda but who have been inspired by its message of hatred and violence.

"Several rogue nations -- and even individuals -- seek to develop nuclear capabilities," he said. "Abdul Khan, for example, was not only the father of Pakistan's nuclear bomb; he peddled that technology to North Korea, Libya and Iran. Khan was one of many to prove that it is indeed a seller's market in the so-called atomic bazaar."

Mr. Mueller said the next terrorist attack is not a question of if, but when. . .

Read the entire story here. Allowing rouge regimes to develop nuclear arsenal raises exponentially the liklihood that we will see a mushroom cloud over one or more of our cities. The time to try and reduce this threat is now, before Iran is able to acquire any nuclear weapons and sets off a nuclear arms race among equally or even more dangerous regimes such as Saudi Arabia.

In light of the threat that we face, I think there is no question that this should have been front page news accross the MSM. Yet, inexplicably, this dire warning is not even mentioned in the New York Times. The Washington Post, for its part, did a lead article on Director Mueller, but it had nothing to do with the existential threat of nuclear terrorism. Instead, their lead article criticized Mueller for using an FBI jet for 36 trips over a five year period. Apparently, none in the MSM care for the message that Director Mueller has to deliver on the inevitability of future terrorist attacks, nor the inevitability of nuclear terrorism. The reason is clear - if terrorism and national security take center stage in the 2008 elections, the Democrat stand a greatly diminished chance of electoral victory. Thus, newsworthy information that should inform every voter is buried and goes unreported. I wonder if the editors and reporters of the MSM will feel that they bear any responsibility for the blood that will be spilled because of it?

Lieberman & The Military Target Iran While Democrats Dither

2007-06-11T22:47:00.000-04:00

The Democrats, led by Harry Reid, let us all know once again why they cannot be trusted with our national security or the conduct of a war. On Sunday, Joe Lieberman, called for military strikes against Iran in response to the acts of war being daily committed by Iran against the US:

. . . "I think we've got to be prepared to take aggressive military action against the Iranians to stop them from killing Americans in Iraq," Lieberman told Bob Schieffer. "And to me, that would include a strike into... over the border into Iran, where we have good evidence that they have a base at which they are training these people coming back into Iraq to kill our soldiers."

. . . If the U.S. does not act against Iran, "they'll take that as a sign of weakness on our part and we will pay for it in Iraq and throughout the region and ultimately right here at home," Lieberman said.

. . . "We can tell them we want them to stop that, but if there's any hope of the Iranians living according to the international rule of law and stopping, for instance, their nuclear weapons development, we can't just talk to them," Lieberman said. "If they don't play by the rules, we've got to use our force, and to me that would include taking military action to stop them from doing what they're doing."

Read the entire story here. Joe Lieberman is spot on in his assessment (see here and here), But Harry Reid responded, once again embracing peace at all costs before the '08 election. He would give Iran a free pass to continue engaging in acts that kill our soldiers and destabilize Iraq, calling for diplomacy and a regional conference because "[t]he invasion of [Iran] is only going to destabilize that part of the world more." Perhaps Mr. Reid has forgotten that the precipitous withdrawal from Iraq that he proposes for partisan political gain will be the single greatest destabilizing act in the Middle East imaginable.

UPDATE: Bill Rogio writes that the Army now has proof beyond any reasonable doubt of Iran's complicity in the Karbala raid that ended in the death of five U.S. soldiers. Satelite photos show the Iran built a mock up of the target area in a city where they have been training Iraqi militants.

Meanwhile, the left are beginning to realize that, one, their Presidential candidates are going to be attacked on a daily basis for their incredible weakness on issues relating to national security and terrorism, and two, that these candidates have very little in the way of substantive response to the charges. The WSJ has the story of the left's conundrum here.

And on a final note, the Jerusalem Post is reporting that the U.S. military has drawn up its plans for a strike on Iran in response to their continuing quest for nuclear weapons:

Predicting that Iran will obtain a nuclear weapon within three years and claiming to have a strike plan in place, senior American military officers have told The Jerusalem Post they support President George W. Bush's stance to do everything necessary to stop the Islamic Republic's race for nuclear power.

. . . A high-ranking American military officer told the Post that senior officers in the US armed forces had thrown their support behind Bush and believed that additional steps needed to be taken to stop Iran.

Predictions within the US military are that Bush will do what is needed to stop Teheran before he leaves office in 2009, including possibly launching a military strike against its nuclear facilities.

. . . According to a high-ranking American military officer, the US Navy and Air Force would play the primary roles in any military action taken against Iran. One idea under consideration is a naval blockade designed to cut off Iran's oil exports.

The officer said that if the US government or the UN Security Council decided on this course of action, the US Navy would most probably not block the Strait of Hormuz - a step that would definitely draw an Iranian military response - but would patrol farther out and turn away tankers on their way to load oil.

. . . The US officer said that perhaps even more dangerous to Israel and the Western world than Iranian nukes was the possibility that a terrorists cell associated with al-Qaida or global jihad would acquire a highly radioactive "dirty bomb" or a vial of deadly chemical or biological agents. The officer said al-Qaida was gaining a strong foothold in the Middle East and that Israel was being surrounded by global jihad elements in Lebanon, Jordan and Sinai.

"Iran is a state-sponsored type of terrorism that can be dealt with," he said, adding that it was far more difficult to strike at the source of an isolated terrorist cell. . . .

Read the entire article here. Let us hope this article is accurate. It is difficult to imagine anything more dangerous to the world then a nuclear armed Iran.

Is Capital Punishment a Deterrence?

2007-06-11T21:06:00.000-04:00

Does the death penalty work as a deterrent to murder? It is dogma among liberals across the world that it does not. But they are wrong, according to several recent studies outside of the advocacy community:

. . . [A] series of academic studies over the last half-dozen years . . . claim to settle a once hotly debated argument — whether the death penalty acts as a deterrent to murder. The analyses say yes. They count between three and 18 lives that would be saved by the execution of each convicted killer.

The reports have horrified death penalty opponents and several scientists, who vigorously question the data and its implications.

. . . "Science does really draw a conclusion. It did. There is no question about it," said Naci Mocan, an economics professor at the University of Colorado at Denver. "The conclusion is there is a deterrent effect."

A 2003 study he co-authored, and a 2006 study that re-examined the data, found that each execution results in five fewer homicides, and commuting a death sentence means five more homicides. "The results are robust, they don't really go away," he said. "I oppose the death penalty. But my results show that the death penalty (deters) — what am I going to do, hide them?"

Statistical studies like his are among a dozen papers since 2001 that capital punishment has deterrent effects. They all explore the same basic theory — if the cost of something (be it the purchase of an apple or the act of killing someone) becomes too high, people will change their behavior (forego apples or shy from murder).

To explore the question, they look at executions and homicides, by year and by state or county, trying to tease out the impact of the death penalty on homicides by accounting for other factors, such as unemployment data and per capita income, the probabilities of arrest and conviction, and more.

Among the conclusions:

• Each execution deters an average of 18 murders, according to a 2003 nationwide study by professors at Emory University. (Other studies have estimated the deterred murders per execution at three, five and 14).

• The Illinois moratorium on executions in 2000 led to 150 additional homicides over four years following, according to a 2006 study by professors at the University of Houston.

• Speeding up executions would strengthen the deterrent effect. For every 2.75 years cut from time spent on death row, one murder would be prevented, according to a 2004 study by an Emory University professor.

In 2005, there were 16,692 cases of murder and nonnegligent manslaughter nationally. There were 60 executions.

The studies' conclusions drew a philosophical response from a well-known liberal law professor, University of Chicago's Cass Sunstein. A critic of the death penalty, in 2005 he co-authored a paper titled "Is capital punishment morally required?"

"If it's the case that executing murderers prevents the execution of innocents by murderers, then the moral evaluation is not simple," he told The Associated Press. "Abolitionists or others, like me, who are skeptical about the death penalty haven't given adequate consideration to the possibility that innocent life is saved by the death penalty."

Sunstein said that moral questions aside, the data needs more study.

Critics of the findings have been vociferous. . . .

. . . "This isn't left vs. right. This is a nerdy statistician saying it's too hard to tell," Wolfers said. "Within the advocacy community and legal scholars who are not as statistically adept, they will tell you it's still an open question. Among the small number of economists at leading universities whose bread and butter is statistical analysis, the argument is finished."

Several authors of the pro-deterrent reports said they welcome criticism in the interests of science, but said their work is being attacked by opponents of capital punishment for their findings, not their flaws.

"Instead of people sitting down and saying 'let's see what the data shows,' it's people sitting down and saying 'let's show this is wrong,'" said Paul Rubin, an economist and co-author of an Emory University study. "Some scientists are out seeking the truth, and some of them have a position they would like to defend."

The latest arguments replay a 1970s debate that had an impact far beyond academic circles.

Then, economist Isaac Ehrlich had also concluded that executions deterred future crimes. His 1975 report was the subject of mainstream news articles and public debate, and was cited in papers before the U.S. Supreme Court arguing for a reversal of the court's 1972 suspension of executions. (The court, in 1976, reinstated the death penalty.) . . .

Read the entire story here.

(H/T Jules Crittenden)

CAIR's Dwindling Support In America

2007-06-11T18:40:00.000-04:00

There are polls, there is spin, and then there is objective fact. It is often impossible to winnow away the first two to get to the latter - but not today, at least as far as it is possilbe to identify support for the Council on American Islamic Relations (CAIR) among American Muslims. The fact is that American Muslims have been jumping ship from CAIR ever since 9-11, as membership in the organization has dwindled by 90% to less then 1,700 members today. Their dues generate only $58,750 for CAIR. The only thing keeping CAIR afloat at the moment - and flush with a $3,000,000 operating budget to pursue its radical Islamist agenda - are the donations of twelve "private individuals." There can be little doubt that, if we identify those donors, we will find a direct link to Ridyah. The Washington Times has the story:

. . . Asked about the decline, Parvez Ahmed, CAIR board chairman, pointed to the number of individual donors to the organization.

"We are proud that our grass-roots support in the American Muslim community has allowed CAIR to grow from having eight chapters and offices in 2001 to having 33 today," Mr. Ahmed said.

The self-described civil liberties organization for Muslims seeks to portray "a positive image of Islam" through public relations and the media, but has instead alienated some by defending questionable accusations of discrimination.

Critics of the organization say they are not surprised membership is sagging, and that a recent decision by the Justice Department to name CAIR as "unindicted co-conspirators" in a federal case against another foundation charged with providing funds to a terrorist group could discourage new members.

M. Zuhdi Jasser, director of the American-Islamic Forum for Democracy, says the sharp decline in membership calls into question whether the organization speaks for 7 million American Muslims, as the group has claimed.

"This is the untold story in the myth that CAIR represents the American Muslim population. They only represent their membership and donors," Mr. Jasser said.

Read the whole story here. This augers well for Muslims in America. CAIR's agenda is to promote Salafi Islam and to drive a wedge between Americans and American Muslims. The fact that American Muslims are largely rejecting this message is good news indeed. Now it is time for our government to stop working with CAIR and promoting their agenda from above.